R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1069 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== ANITABEN DAHYABHAI CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR ALAY S SHETH(12022) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS HASMEET B GILL(11870) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 22/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. Here is the Appeal by the complainant victim 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, Vadodara passed in Sessions Case No.191 of 2022, dated 13.10.2025, acquitting the respondents - accused from the offences punishable under Sections 493, 506(2), 376 read with Section 114 of the IPC, the original complainant – victim has preferred instant R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 appeal. 3. This Court has heard Mr. Alay Seth, learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of the appellant – victim, Ms. Hasmeet B.Gill, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents-accused and Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for the State. 4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the appellant-victim aged about 22 years old, had acquaintance with the accused Hardeepsingh Gill as both were associated with the catering business. In 2006, due to their common work, they developed an intimate and close relationship. According to say of the complainant-victim, under the pretext and inducement of marriage, the accused got her signature on blank form. Upon inquiry by the complainant, it was explained by the accused that, it was marriage registration form. This made her believe that the accused had married her and she started living with the accused as husband and wife. She was introduced at different hotels as his wife in the name of “Simran Kaur” instead of her actual name. The complainant had performed her duties and obligations as if she married to the accused and maintained physical relationship. She was introduced in the family and social circle as his wife. In such circumstances, since 2006 to February, 2009, she had lived with the accused. In February, 2009, the dispute arose between the parties as without informing the complainant, the accused Hardeepsingh Gill engaged with woman belongs to Mumbai, Maharashtra. The victim took strong objection about the engagement of the accused. It was the explanation of the accused that, at the instance of family pressure, he engaged with another woman. The victim thereafter, went to the house of the accused and raised the concern to the co-accused R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 who are parents and brother of the principal accused. However, instead of protecting her, she was threatened by the co-accused that if she raised the voice, then they will kill her. In such circumstances, on 03.04.2009, the complainant – victim lodged an FIR with Vadi Police Station, inter alia, stating that the accused had deceitfully induced her to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused, consequently, by gaining her trust, he maintained physical relationship and under the false promise to marriage, her consent was obtained for maintaining the relationship which would otherwise she would not have consented. After registration of the offence, the I.O. proceeded to investigate the case and during the investigation, the accused no.1 – Hardeepsingh came to be arrested as well as co-accused were arrested. The I.O. had added the charge of rape with the permission of the court. After completion of investigation, filed a chargesheet against the respondents – accused no.2 to 5 for the offences as referred above. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW:1). The prosecution has relied upon 10 exhibited documents. 7. On conclusion of oral evidence, the Trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, they claimed their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Page 3 of 9 R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 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 they were charged, on the ground that, the victim was consenting party and relationship was consensual in nature and there is no material to show that from the initial stage, the accused no.1 made a false promise to extract the consent of the victim for the act of sexual intercourse. The Trial Court has not believed the story set-up by the victim that the accused got a signature of her on the marriage form which led to believe her that the accused had married to her. The Trial Court has held and observed that the victim was consenting party to the relationship and had adequate intelligent and maturity to understand the significance and morality associated with the act. The Trial Court has also observed that Rs.3 lakhs of the victim was due from the accused and on that issue, she made a complaint to the police authority also. So far as accused nos.3 to 5 are concerned, the Trial Court while acquitting them observed that, nothing on record to prove that the accused who are parents and brother of the principal accused, threatened the victim and forced her to sign in blank paper. 9. In such circumstances, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused held and observed that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused by cogent and credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 10. The appellant victim, being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal, has preferred the present appeal. Page 4 of 9 R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 11. Mr.Alay Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while 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 ordinarily, the evidence of victim should not be suspected and should be believed, more so, as her statement has to be evaluated on par with that of injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, it is the accused to substantiate the allegation; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the victim had developed a close relationship with the accused no.1 and under the pretext of registration of the marriage, her signature was taken on blank paper which act made her believe that she was legally wedded wife of the accused and considering the long stay at different places of the parties, would indicative of the facts that by deceitful act of the accused, made her cohabit with the accused; that the Trial Court erred in placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2071); that the accused no.1 had introduced the appellant victim as his wife in the society and there is no reason for a victim to come up with a false story. 12. In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted that while acquitting the respondents accused, the trial Court has discarded and ignored the truthful, reliable and acceptable evidence and as such, no cogent reasons being assigned while discarding such evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the conclusion of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and upon erroneous understanding of law. Thus, it is prayed that it is a fit case to admit the appeal. Page 5 of 9 R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 13. On the other hand, Ms.Hasmeet Gill, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents accused, submitted that after appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused has assigned cogent and sufficient reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the charges having not been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the judgment passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 14. Learned APP Mr.Rohan Raval has fairly stated that the State has not filed acquittal appeal. 15. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused? 16. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. 17. 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. Page 6 of 9 R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 18. We have carefully examined the evidence of the witness PW:1 and the evidence of her friend PW:3. Upon careful consideration of the oral evidence, we have noticed that the victim and accused no.1 were engaged in the catering business and since 2006 to 2009, they were in relation and due to their relation, they maintained physical relationship. The question to be determined is whether in the facts and circumstances, it is possible to accept the allegation that the accused had taken signature of the victim on blank marriage from which made her believe that accused had married her, as a result, she indulged in the sexual intercourse with the accused ? 19. According to the version of the victim, during three years, they stayed together as husband and wife at different places i.e. hotels and rented premises and they jointly managed the catering business. In order to prove the said facts, nothing on record to prove that at different hotels, the victim was introduced as the wife of the accused. The I.O. failed to collect the necessary admission register of the hotels, CCTV footages and/or rent notes. Even he did not have recorded the statement of the owners of the house, who had rented the premises. It is relevant to note that the family members of the victim having no knowledge about the relationship. In such circumstances, it is difficult to infer the facts that the accused induced and deceit her about the registration of the marriage and under the belief of marriage, she had lived with the accused and consented for physical relationship. Therefore, in our opinion, the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 493 IPC are not established and proved. To bring home an offence under Section 493, the prosecution is obliged to prove that; (i) the accused practiced deceit; (ii) that by alleged deceit, he induced a woman not his wife to believe herself R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 to be lawfully wedded to the accused and (iii) that thereby, she cohobated or had sexual intercourse with the accused. 20. So far as charge of rape is concerned, the Trial Court in Paras-16 and 17 of its judgment recorded that the relationship of the accused and victim were consensual in nature and prosecution failed to prove that the promise was false from the very beginning of their relationship. We are on complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court as without any complaint, the parties have maintained relationship. It is on record that the victim had to recover of Rs.3 lakhs from the accused, but somehow, she could not recover it from the accused. In such circumstances, considering the overall attending the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the accused had malafide motive and made a false promise that the marriage has already been executed. It is settled position of law that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relation pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 could only be made out if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relation without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning and such false promise of marriage, had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relation. (Pramodkumar Navratna Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2026 INSC 124). 21. We may profitable refer the observations of the Supreme Court in Prasant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 (5) SCC 764, wherein it was observed that mere a break of relationship between consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage. In another judgment, the R/CR.A/1069/2026(GJHC240075562026) JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2026 Supreme Court (Samadhan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online 2528), observed that the offence of rape being the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence or pre-consent. To convert every soured relationship into an offence of rape not only trivializes the seriousness of the offence, but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. The misuse of criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern for the judiciary already facing heavy load and calls for condemnation. 22. Applying the settled principles as referred above to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge of rape and other penal charges beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 23. 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, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. 24. With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal, at the admission stage, is dismissed. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) Rakesh Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: RAKESH MAHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC00950), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/09/2026 16:18:07