Rajeshbhai Ashokbhai Gohel (Luhar) & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, 2026

According to the prosecution, the two accused, Rajeshbhai Ashokbhai Gohel and Naresh @ Dakubhai Madhavjibhai Solanki, followed the girls on a motorcycle. They allegedly whistled and winked at them, made vulgar remarks, intercepted them and grabbed the arm of the primary victim. The girls raised an alarm, following which the accused allegedly fled from the spot.

An FIR was registered at Jetpur Taluka Police Station for offences under Sections 354, 504 and 114 IPC. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 354 read with Section 114 IPC. The Sessions Court subsequently reduced the substantive sentence from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year’s simple imprisonment and enhanced the fine to ₹10,000 each.

The accused challenged the conviction before the Gujarat High Court, principally arguing that there were contradictions in the evidence, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted, there was delay between the incident and FIR, and independent witnesses had not been examined.

The High Court independently re-appreciated the evidence and found that the two victims had consistently supported the prosecution version. The Court held that the absence of a Test Identification Parade was not fatal in the circumstances because the accused were fellow villagers and were identifiable to the victims, even though their formal names were initially supplied through the victim's father.

The Court also rejected the argument that the evidence should be discarded merely because some witnesses were related to the victim. The testimony of the victims was found sufficiently consistent and trustworthy.

The Court further confirmed that the conduct alleged—whistling, winking, making vulgar remarks and physically grabbing the victim's arm—was sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 354 IPC when assessed in the circumstances proved by the prosecution.

The Court declined to extend the benefit of probation, notwithstanding the long period that had elapsed since the 2008 incident. The revision was therefore dismissed and the conviction and sentence, as modified by the appellate court, were confirmed.

The suspension of sentence was vacated and the applicants were directed to surrender within eight weeks, failing which the concerned court could issue non-bailable warrants.

The defence placed considerable emphasis on the absence of a Test Identification Parade. The High Court nevertheless accepted the explanation that the accused were known as fellow villagers. Their formal names not being initially known to the victims was not treated as equivalent to complete unfamiliarity. The Court therefore considered the identification in court along with the surrounding evidence rather than treating the absence of TIP as automatically fatal.

The Court recognized that several witnesses were related to the victim. However, relationship alone was not considered sufficient to discard their evidence. The Court examined the evidence as a whole and found the accounts of the victims substantially consistent.

The defence argued that the prosecution had not examined independent persons despite the alleged location being near residential areas and a bus stop. The Court considered the surrounding circumstances and found that this circumstance did not outweigh the direct evidence of the victims.

The judgment emphasizes that an offence under Section 354 does not depend solely upon proof of a particular verbal expression. The Court considered the physical conduct, gestures, remarks and circumstances collectively. The trial court had also relied on the principle that absolute or expressly stated criminal intent is not necessarily the only test; the relevant conduct and knowledge may establish the statutory offence.

An important distinction is that although the prosecution alleged Section 504 IPC, the trial court did not convict the accused under that provision because the evidence did not establish the specific insulting or abusive words necessary to satisfy its ingredients. The High Court found no error in that approach.

The applicants relied on the passage of approximately 18 years, their settled family circumstances and the absence of subsequent criminal antecedents. The High Court nevertheless declined probation after considering the nature of the offence and the principles governing Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The decision illustrates that in a criminal revision, the High Court may re-examine the evidence but will not interfere merely because another interpretation is theoretically possible when the concurrent findings of the lower courts are supported by reliable evidence. It also demonstrates the importance of evaluating victim testimony, identification circumstances, material contradictions and the nature of the offence collectively, rather than treating any single evidentiary circumstance in isolation.