R/CR.A/1388/2026(GJHC240375942026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1388 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== LALJIBHAI SHANABHAI CHUNARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Appellant MR ROHAN H. RAVAL APP for the Respondent ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 21/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. Here is the Appeal by the original complainant under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding section 372 of Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order of acquittal. 2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Petlad (Anand), passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.14 of 2025, dated 20.03.2026, acquitting the R/CR.A/1388/2026(GJHC240375942026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 accused from the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 367(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offenses, ___ Act, the complainant has preferred instant appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Maulik Soni, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent State. 4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the victim aged 16 years and 11 months allegedly kidnapped on 22.12.2022 from the Village : Sojitra by the accused. Her father lodged an FIR on 26.12.2022 under Section 363 of the IPC. Later on, the victim was found with the accused on 08.10.2025 and it was revealed that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly upon the victim, as a result, she got pregnant. Consequently, further charges under Section 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act were added. The IO after completion of the investigation, filed the chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offenses. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Petlad, District: Anand. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and relied on 22 exhibited documents. Page 2 of 6 R/CR.A/1388/2026(GJHC240375942026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 7. On conclusion of oral evidence, the Trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, he claimed his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the accused herein for the offences with which he was charged, on the following grounds: (i) That the victim has not at all supported to the case of the prosecution. She has not admitted her relationship with the accused. She did not have permitted the doctors for medical examination. She has refused for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (ii) The IO failed to get necessary DNA test report to prove the paternity of the fetus and as such there is no forensic evidence available on record to prove the involvement of the accused in the crime. 9. In such circumstances, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused, held and observed that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Page 3 of 6 R/CR.A/1388/2026(GJHC240375942026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 10. Mr. Maulik Soni, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the original complainant, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, has submitted that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings recorded are palpably erroneous and based on the irrelevant material; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that merely because witnesses have been declared hostile, the entire case does not stand effaced from the record and the portion of the evidence, which is otherwise reliable and finds corroboration, can always be taken into consideration and therefore, the evidence victim who has been declared hostile, having not been properly appreciated; that the trial Court has ignored the material admission and incriminating circumstances appearing on records; the medical evidence corroborated the victim’s version, however, the same has been discarded without assigning proper reasons as the physical relations with the accused having not been denied by the victim. 11. In such circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court is unreasonable and findings are perverse, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore, it has been submitted that this is a fit case to admit the appeal. 12. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused? 13. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. Page 4 of 6 R/CR.A/1388/2026(GJHC240375942026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 14. Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against the acquittal and when the same is justified. In exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bear in mind the presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided, unless there are reasons for interference. 15. In the facts of the present case, the incident alleged to have been occurred on 22.04.2022 and after gap of almost 3 years, the victim was found and her statement came to be recorded on 08.10.2025. The victim in her deposition, did not have deposed against the accused. She had refused to give her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Even the Medical Officer was unable to conduct necessary tests on the victim because of her non-cooperation. In such circumstances, question falls for our consideration, as to whether the prosecution succeed in establishing the guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence on record. In our opinion, the answer is ‘No’. The most material evidence to prove the complicity of the accused is the DNA profile test, as at relevant time, the victim was pregnant. However, the IO failed to get necessary testing report of the victim with respect to the DNA Profiling Test. Even otherwise, if we consider the Forensic Science Evidence, nothing on record to suggest that the accused in any manner was R/CR.A/1388/2026(GJHC240375942026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 responsible for the said pregnancy. Thus, in our opinion, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused on the proved circumstances, so as to infer the guilt of the accused. 16. In the result, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and in absence of substantial and compelling reason, no ground exists to interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and therefore, in our view, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. 17. With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) P.S. JOSHI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/09/2026 17:22:07