Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Anitaben Babubhai vs The State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1105-1106/2016
ANITABEN BABUBHAI & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. For the sake of brevity, the facts of the instant appeal
are set out in a short compass. On 05.11.1991, the victim,
then 16 years old, went to fetch water from the public tap
near Refinery Cross Road in Vadodara. The complainant–mother
thereafter noticed that the light in the house of accused
no. 1 was switched on, even though the front door was
closed. However, when she went to the back of the house and
peeped in through the window, she noticed her daughter along
with three persons.
2. The complainant–mother thereafter lodged a complaint on
25.11.1991 at Jawaharnagar Police Station, District –
Baroda. According to the complainant, she did not approach
the police immediately because she felt that it might harm
the reputation of the family and her daughter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
3. After the investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections
Date: 2026.02.24
16:39:10 IST
Reason:
363, 366, 376, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1
1860 (in short, the “IPC”) was filed against six accused
persons, including both the women appellants (Accused Nos. 5
and 6, respectively), before us in the instant appeal. It is
pertinent to mention that the appellants herein are the
wives of the co-accused persons – Babubhai (Accused No. 3;
now deceased) and Rashmibhai Himmatlal Dave (Accused No. 2),
respectively.
4. The prosecution successfully established that accused
no.2 was guilty of committing an offence under Section 376
IPC, whereas both the appellants before us, along with
accused no.1 (Dilip Harising), abducted the victim with a
view to facilitating the accused No. 2 and were accordingly
guilty of offences under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.
Accused Nos. 3 and 4 have also subsequently passed away, and
hence it is not necessary to refer to the role attributed to
them.
5. It is also a matter of record that the concurrent
conviction and consequential sentence awarded to the main
accused (Rashmibhai Himmatlal Dave) was upheld by this Court
vide Order dated 20.04.2015 in the instant appeal. The
conviction and sentence of another co-accused (Dilip
Harising) were upheld by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.
2293/2015.
6. Notably, while dismissing the petition of the main
accused and with a view to revisiting the culpability of the
2
appellants and the proportionality of the sentence imposed,
this Court vide Order dated 20.04.2015 issued notice qua
them. Subsequently, leave was granted on 15.11.2016, and the
appellants were directed to be released on bail and have
remained on bail ever since.
7. We have heard learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
appellants as well as learned State counsel at considerable
length and have scrutinised the evidence on record with
their able assistance.
8. Though it may appear improbable that the second
appellant could have conspired with her husband to commit
rape upon the victim, we find that there is overwhelming
evidence on record to indicate that the appellants are
accused of having assisted in the kidnapping of the victim.
Thereafter, the victim was kept at the house of the father
of the principal accused after committing the offence under
Section 376 of the IPC. The evidence has been critically
appreciated by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court.
There is a concurrent finding of fact with respect to the
role attributed to the appellants. In such circumstances and
in view of the scope of interference in a finding of fact
based upon appreciation of evidence, this Court, in exercise
of its appellate power, we are satisfied that no case to
interfere is made out, insofar as the conviction of the
appellants is concerned.
3
9. We have also heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for
the parties on the quantum of sentence.
10. Both appellants are women from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds. Whether their participation in
the incident was voluntary or influenced by the dominance of
male family members is a significant consideration,
particularly when viewed in light of the socio-economic
circumstances surrounding the co-accused. They have no prior
criminal antecedents and have already undergone nearly two
years of actual imprisonment. Their conduct, during the
approximately ten years since being granted bail, is also
not blameworthy. In these circumstances, directing the
appellants to undergo the remainder of their sentence at
this stage would serve no meaningful purpose in advancing
the administration of criminal justice.
11. Consequently, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case; the fact that the appellants are
women; that they belong to the poorer section of society;
that they are not the main accused; and that there are
multiple mitigating circumstances on record, we are inclined
to reduce the sentence to the extent they have already
undergone. Ordered accordingly.
12. The appeals are allowed in part. The sentence awarded to
the appellants by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the High
Court, is, consequently, reduced to the extent of the period
4
they have already undergone. The bail bonds furnished by the
appellants are, accordingly, discharged unless they are
found involved in some other case.
……………………..CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
……………………….J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 20, 2026
5
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1105-1106/2016
ANITABEN BABUBHAI & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s)
Date : 20-02-2026 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR
Mr. Aditya Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Aarushi Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Sankalp Suman, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the signed order.
2. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
6
