R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 935 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================================== ANAND CHHANABHAI THAKOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR HD CHUDASAMA(234) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR JM BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 27/06/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case no.45 of 2003 by the appellant – accused, aged about 21 years. The sentence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, two months simple R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment were imposed. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Chudasama for the appellant has submitted that it was totally a case of love affair. The learned Judge has noted the age of the victim as 16 years. The incident was of 14.10.2002, where it was alleged that the appellant had abducted the victim. Mr. Chudasama has submitted that the photographs show that there was no force exerted by the appellant who was aged about 21 years. It was a consensual relation and the prosecutrix on her own had eloped with the accused and such an observation is also being made by the learned Judge that the relation was consensual in nature. 3. Mr. Rohankumar Raval, learned APP has submitted that though there has been settlement between the parties, but R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 the offence has been committed, which has resulted into conviction and sentence and hence, states that no concession can be granted on the settlement between the parties. 4. The victim girl had come before this Court on 25.6.2025 to state that she has already married and settle with her husband and she is having two children. She stated that just because the parents were against her marriage, trial was conducted and stated that thereafter, now after a period of 23 years, she does not want any further proceedings of the matter which would effect her own matrimonial life. This Court therefore had asked the prosecutrix to put the said fact on affidavit. Hence, today, learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti has produced an affidavit of the victim lady which is affirmed before the notary on 25.6.2025. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the victim girl at the time of offence and the relation was consensual in nature and when both the parties have settled in their matrimonial life, the request is required to be considered. Page 3 of 5 R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 5. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State By the Inspector of Police, 2022 (0) JX (SC) 522, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to the provisions of the POCSO Act and taking into consideration the subsequent event of happy marriage life and having two children and in light of the circumstances, the conviction and sentence was set aside without establishing the legal precedent. 6. In the case of Shriram Urav v. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal no.41 of 2021, the conviction was under Sections 366, 376 of the IPC. The victim was 15 years of age and keeping in mind that the appellant – accused subsequently married with the prosecutrix and they have four children out of the wedlock, under the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exercised the jurisdiction and quashed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. 7. In the present matter, the prosecutrix on her own volition has urged the Court to set aside the conviction and sentence, which has been passed against the appellant. She has reaffirmed in the affidavit that it was a love affair and she was 16 years old at the time of the FIR and she R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 does not want to pursue with the matter. 8. The learned Trial Court had considered the consensual relations between the parties. The age of the victim was noted as 16 years. It is also further to place on record that incident is of 14.10.2002 prior to coming into force of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and when both the parties have settled in their life with their own matrimonial relation, this Court considers that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is required to be set aside. 9. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case no.45 of 2003 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/06/2025 17:51:51