Holding

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court’s acquittal was correct, so the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC against the acquittal of Kailashgiri Ramgiri Goswami by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, who found insufficient evidence to sustain charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on the testimony of fifteen witnesses, the victim’s statement, and documentary evidence, alleging that the accused kidnapped and attempted to force the victim into illicit intercourse. The High Court examined the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the lack of medical injuries, and the absence of any allegation that the accused induced the victim, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the limited power of appellate courts to disturb acquittals, the Court held that where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the acquittal must stand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s order of acquittal confirmed.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the prosecution evidence to prove the elements of Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
Whether the appellate court can overturn an acquittal when the evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions.
Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of the victim’s testimony and medical evidence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 378(1)(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 363, s. 366

Subjects

kidnappingabductionIPCacquittal appealburden of proofdouble presumptionevidence appraisalCriminal Procedure

Judgment

R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1625 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes
No
✔
==========================================
STATE OF GUAJRAT
Versus
KAILASHGIRI RAMGIRI GOSWAMI
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 10/06/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal (hereinafter be referred to as “the
trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.67 of 2010, whereby the trial Court
has acquitted the original accused (respondent herein) from the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 etc of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”).

Page 1 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant
was residing at Darshan Park Society at Shapar Veraval Village
wherefrom the accused allured his sister on 03.04.2010 under the
pretext of any reason and as such, he kidnapped his sister knowing
fully well that the sister of the complainant was minor induced her for
any reason. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the complainant before
Kotadasangani Police Station and it has been registered as I – C.R.
No.33 of 2010 for the aforesaid offences and police started
investigation. The police prepared panchnama of scene of offence
and the accused was arrested. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class.

2.2 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 10 for the aforesaid offences. On being explained it
to him, the accused has denied having committed any offence. The
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and
hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondal.

3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-

P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit
1 Ashokbhai Ghanshyambhai Mehta 13
2 Rajeshbhai Baldevbhai Goswami 15
3 Amrutgiri Keshavgiri Goswami 17
4 Rasikpari Keshavgiri Goswami 18
5 Ashokbhai Govindbhai Medpara 20
6 Ghanshyambhai Karshanbhai Mehta 22
7 Pujaben Ashokbhai Mehta 23

Page 2 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

8 Prakashbhai Ghanshyambhai Mehta 24
9 Bharatbhai Karshanbhai Mehta 25
10 Victim 26
11 Dr.Sanjaykumar Raghunandanprasad Sinha 27
12 Dr.Narendra Pravinbhai Vekariya 31
13 Nathabhai Polabhai Badvani 36
14 Bhargav Vinodrai Pandya 40
15 Vishnukumar Narotambhai Patel 42

4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence.

Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit
1 Complaint 14
2 Arrest panchnama 16
3 Panchnama of the scene of offence 19
4 Order of investigation 37
5 Birth certificate of the victim 41

5. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that he was innocent.

6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this Appeal.

Page 3 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

8. Heard Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Raval, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents – accused at length.

9. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant
– Sate of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are narrated in
the memo of appeal. She has submitted that though the prosecution
has examined as many as 15 witnesses and also produced the
documentary evidence, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence of the witnesses and disbelieved the same on the ground
that the prosecution has not proved the charge levelled against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. She has submitted that the trial
Court has committed an error in holding that the prosecution had not
examined material witnesses and thereby suppressed the genesis,
which is contrary to the facts of the case.

9.1 Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant
– State of Gujarat has submitted that the judgment and order of
acquittal is contrary to law and facts. She has submitted that the trial
Court has not properly considered the evidence of the victim
examined at Exhibit 26, who gave her version supporting the case of
the prosecution and deposed that the accused induced her under the
pretext of marriage and kidnapped her and pressurized her to have
sexual intercourse and whenever she refused to do so the accused
was beating her. She has submitted that during the cross examination
of the victim, nothing adverse could be elicited to the prosecution
case and on this ground, the trial Court ought to have convicted and
sentenced the accused for the alleged offence and even the trial
Court has not considered the ossification test conducted upon the

Page 4 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

victim, which shows that the age of the victim was between 14 to 16
years and as such she was not major at the time of incident.

9.2 According to submission of Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and
ought to have imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow
the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.

10. Mr.Raval, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that the reason assigned by the trial Court in acquitting the accused
is just and proper and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the
appeal. He has submitted that the witnesses have not supported the
case of the prosecution and there was no any corroboration in the
evidence of the complainant and, hence, the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against
the accused for the alleged offences. Lastly, Mr.Raval, learned counsel
has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be
dismissed and the judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be
confirmed.

11. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that
there was no allegation that the accused had allured or induced the
victim who was aged about 17 years at the time of incident. In fact,
from any of the evidence of the witnesses, the fact reveals that
originally the complaint was registered as Janvajog entry before the
concerned police station by the father of the victim wherein there was
no name of the present accused and, thereafter, the said FIR at
Exhibit 14 came to be lodged by the brother of the victim. On perusal
of the contents of the FIR, it appears that there was no sufficient

Page 5 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

material against the accused to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 363
and 366 of the IPC. It is pertinent to refer to Sections 363 and 366 of
the IPC which reads thus:-

“363. Punishment for kidnapping.—Whoever kidnaps any
person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

[363A. Kidnapping or maiming a minor for purposes of
begging.—(1) Whoever kidnaps any minor or, not being
the lawful guardian of a minor, obtains the custody of the
minor, in order that such minor may be employed or used
for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever maims any minor in order that such minor
may be employed or used for the purposes of begging
shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.

(3) Where any person, not being the lawful guardian of a
minor, employs or uses such minor for the purposes of
begging, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that he kidnapped or otherwise obtained the
custody of that minor in order that the minor might be
employed or used for the purposes of begging.

(4) In this section,—

(a) “begging” means—

(i) soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether
under the pretence of singing, dancing, fortunetelling,
performing tricks or selling articles or otherwise;

(ii) entering on any private premises for the purpose of
soliciting or receiving alms;

(iii) exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or
extorting alms, any sore, wound, injury, deformity or
disease, whether of himself or of any other person or of an

Page 6 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

animal;

(iv) using a minor as an exhibit for the purpose of soliciting
or receiving alms;

(b) “minor” means—

(i) in the case of a male, a person under sixteen years of
age; and

(ii) in the case of a female, a person under eighteen years
of age.]

366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel
her marriage, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any
woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing
it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any
person against her will, or in order that she may be forced
or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely
that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; 1[and whoever, by means of criminal
intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of
authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any
woman to go from any place with intent that she may be,
or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also
be punishable as aforesaid].

[366A. Procuration of minor girl.—Whoever, by any means
whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of
eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with
intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely
that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with
another person shall be punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

366B. Importation of girl from foreign country.—Whoever
imports into 3[India] from any country outside India 4[or
from the State of Jammu and Kashmir] any girl under the
age of twenty-one years with intent that she may be, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be, forced or seduced
to illicit intercourse with another person, shall be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten
years and shall shall also be liable to fine.].”

Page 7 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

12. So far as the evidence of the victim at Exhibit 24 is concerned,
the ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC is not satisfied. On
the contrary, she has stated in her evidence that she herself left the
house and she was having no physical relationship with the accused
and since she was having love affair with accused, she herself left the
house. On perusal of the evidence of the doctor at Exhibit 27, it
appears that this witness has not found any injury mark on the body
of the victim nor found that the victim has any physical relationship
during the course of the examination of the victim. It reveals that the
history given before the doctor, the victim has stated that she was
having love affair with accused and, therefore, she herself left the
house. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial
Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. This Court is of the view
that this is acquittal appeal filed by the State, the primary ignorance
was established before the trial Court and since the presumption is in
favour of the accused, the appeal is filed by the State.

13. On perusal of the judgment and award, it appears that the trial
Court has discussed the evidence led by the prosecution, consisting it
as not sufficient and not supporting the case of the prosecution and
there is no sufficient evidence brought on record by the prosecution
to prove the case. On perusal of the evidence, it emerges that there is
material contradiction with regard to the commission of crime in
question and there is no any illegality and infirmity in the judgment
and order of acquittal.

14. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the

Page 8 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.

15. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which he is charged.

Page 9 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

16. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

17. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-

“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:

“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact

Page 10 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”

Page 11 of 12
R/CR.A/1625/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2026

18. Considering the entire evidence on record and the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents, it clearly appears that there is no
credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged
crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged
crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on
record.

19. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against him. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.

20. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/06/2026 09:52:56

Page 12 of 12