Gujarat High Court Acquits Accused in Child Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 363, 365, and 376 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 01:55:36

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Kedar Rathod, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bardoli, for offences under Sections 363, 365, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly kidnapping and raping a 4-year-old girl on 17-18 October 2012. The prosecution alleged that the appellant took the victim on the pretext of feeding her a wafer, purchased from PW-12's shop, and later raped her, leaving her bleeding on a roadside. The victim was found by PW-4 and others. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC, with concurrent sentences for the other offences. The appellant appealed to the Gujarat High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, noting significant contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, including the victim's father (PW-7), the last seen witness (PW-12), and the medical evidence. The court found that the time of occurrence was uncertain, the last seen theory was not reliable due to inconsistencies, and the medical evidence did not conclusively prove rape. The child victim's testimony was not corroborated, and the circumstances did not form a complete chain of guilt. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Rape and Kidnapping - Benefit of Doubt - Sections 363, 365, 376 IPC - Conviction based on unreliable and contradictory evidence - The appellant was convicted for kidnapping and raping a 4-year-old girl. The High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies, particularly regarding the time of occurrence, the last seen evidence, and the medical evidence. The child witness's testimony was not corroborated, and the circumstances did not form a complete chain pointing to the appellant's guilt. Held that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted (Paras 1-29).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 365, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bardoli in Sessions Case No.93 of 2015 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Law Points

Benefit of doubt
Inconsistent testimony
Lack of corroboration
Circumstantial evidence
Last seen theory
Child witness reliability
Medical evidence inconsistency

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:3489-DB

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1149 of 2017

2026-01-19

ILESH J. VORA, R. T. VACHHANI

2026:GUJHC:3489-DB

HCLS COMMITTEE, MR PRATIK B BAROT for Appellant; MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for Respondent

Kedarbhai Ishwarbhai Rathod

State of Gujarat

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for kidnapping and rape of a minor child.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bardoli.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 365, and 376 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; he challenged the conviction on grounds of insufficient and contradictory evidence.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant on 11.05.2017 in Sessions Case No.93 of 2015.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the evidence of the child witness and other witnesses was reliable and corroborated. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case of rape.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the prosecution case was based on weak circumstantial evidence with material contradictions and inconsistencies, and the child witness was tutored. Respondent argued that the evidence of the child witness and other witnesses was consistent and sufficient to prove the guilt.

Ratio Decidendi

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When the evidence is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and lacks corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The last seen theory and medical evidence must be consistent and reliable to sustain a conviction.

Judgment Excerpts

The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and the evidence of the child victim. The evidence of the child witness is not corroborated by any other independent witness. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case of rape. The last seen theory is not reliable due to contradictions in the testimony of PW-12. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Procedural History

The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No.93 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bardoli, who convicted him on 11.05.2017. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.1149 of 2017 before the Gujarat High Court, which was heard and decided on 19.01.2026.