Introduction:
In the quiet corridors of a Gujarat courtroom in 2010, a case exploded that read like the darkest nightmare of the internet age made real. Dineshbhai and his accomplices weren’t just accused of raping minors and indulging in “unnatural” sex, bust also they allegedly turned their victims into child pornography, photographed every depraved act, and tried to sell the obscene images abroad for cold cash.
What the High Court had to decide in Dineshbhai v. State was chillingly simple, yet staggering in its implications. Had the prosecution proved beyond doubt that a husband-wife duo and their gang had weaponised Section 377 IPC, Sections 292 and 293 (obscenity laws), and the bodies of children into an international trade in human degradation? One appeal that forced the judiciary to stare into the abyss of sexual exploitation and ask, “how far does the law reach when evil hides behind a camera lens?”
Details and basic information about the case:
The title of the case is Dineshbhai Jaswantbhai Patel versus State of Gujarat, which was decided on 8 July 2010. The matter was heard and decided in the Gujarat High Court. The primary case number and citation mentioned is Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2003, along with connected appeals and a criminal revision application. The judgment was authored by Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel. The Bench or Coram that heard and decided the matter comprised Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel and Honourable Mr. Justice Z.K. Saiyed. The parties involved in the appeals were the original accused i.e. Dineshbhai Jaswantbhai Patel and others, referred to as Appellant or Accused A1 to A4 and the State of Gujarat i.e. Respondent.
This matter is a criminal case, specifically a series of Criminal Appeals filed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, alongside a Criminal Revision Application filed for the enhancement of a sentence against one of the accused. The appeals arose from Sessions Case No. 259 of 1995. The judgment involves the interpretation and application of several key sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC). The primary offenses that led to the convictions under appeal were Section 377 of the IPC, concerning unnatural offenses, and Section 292 and Section 293 of the IPC, relating to the sale, publication, or distribution of obscene material. Other related offenses mentioned in the prosecution’s case or in the trial court’s proceedings included Section 376 (Rape), Section 465 (Forgery), Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), Section 114 (Abettor present when offence is committed) and Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy). Additionally, procedural sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as Section 157 (Procedure for investigation) and Section 313 (Power to Examine Accused), were part of the judicial process. The record of the judgment indicates that a precedent was cited and referenced during the proceedings, specifically the case of Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Equivalent BNS and BNSS provisions:
Section 377 of IPC Unnatural Offences is deleted in BNS. Section 294 and Section 295 relating to the sale, publication, or distribution of obscene material. Other involved provisions are Section 64 (Rape), Section 336 (Forgery), Section 316(5) (Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), Section 54 (Abettor present when offence is committed) and Section 61 (Criminal conspiracy). Similarly in BNSS equivalent provisions are Section 176 (Procedure for investigation) and Section 351 (Power to Examine Accused).
Details of the appeals heard:
| Appeal/Application Number | Type of Matter | Appellant/Applicant | Opponent |
| Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2003 | Criminal Appeal | Dineshbhai Jaswantbhai Patel Accused No. 4 (A4) | State of Gujarat |
| Criminal Appeal No. 1133 of 2003 | Criminal Appeal | 1. Bhanubhai Nanjibhai Patel: Accused No. 1 (A1) 2. Ilaben Bhanubhai Patel: Accused No. 2 (A2) | State of Gujarat |
| Criminal Appeal No. 997 of 2003 | Criminal Appeal | Kankuben Karshanbhai Desai: Accused No. 3 (A3) | State of Gujarat |
| Criminal Revision Application No. 443 of 2005 | Criminal Revision Application | Sou Moto Appeal | A2: Ilaben Bhanubhai Patel |
Order of Sessions judge in Sessions case no. 259 of 1995:
In this matter, which shocked Bharat in 1990s, Sessions Judge on Dt. 6.08.2003 passed an order of sentence which is as follows:
Based on the judgment and order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 259 of 1995, the accused were convicted and sentenced as follows:
- Accused No. 1: Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) of 10 years and fine of ₹ 5,000/- u/s 377 of IPC; RI of 1 year and fine of ₹ 1,000/- u/s 292 of IPC; RI of 2 years and fine of ₹ 2,000/- u/s 293 of IPC. Thus total fine of ₹ 8,000/- (Eight thousand only) was sentenced. Although total period of RI is sum of 13 years, due to concurrent sentencing of imprisonment finally he has to serve only for 10 years of RI.
- Accused No. 2: RI of 5 years and fine of ₹ 2,000/- u/s 377 of IPC; RI of 1 year and fine of ₹ 1,000/- u/s 292 of IPC; RI of 2 years and fine of ₹ 2,000/- u/s 293 of IPC. Thus total fine of ₹ 5,000/- (Five thousand only) was sentenced. Although total period of RI is sum of 8 years, due to concurrent sentencing of imprisonment finally he has to serve only for 5 years of RI.
- Accused No. 3: RI of 5 years and fine of ₹ 2,000/- u/s 377 of IPC; RI of 1 year and fine of ₹ 1,000/- u/s 292 of IPC; RI of 2 years and fine of ₹ 2,000/- u/s 293 of IPC. Thus total fine of ₹ 5,000/- (Five thousand only) was sentenced. Although total period of RI is sum of 8 years, due to concurrent sentencing of imprisonment finally he has to serve only for 5 years of RI.
- Accused No. 4: RI of 10 years and fine of ₹ 5,000/- u/s 377 of IPC; RI of 1 year and fine of ₹ 1,000/- u/s 292 of IPC; RI of 2 years and fine of ₹ 2,000/- u/s 293 of IPC. Thus total fine of ₹ 8,000/- (Eight thousand only) was sentenced. Although total period of RI is sum of 13 years, due to concurrent sentencing of imprisonment finally he has to serve only for 10 years of RI.
It must be noted that, to be a culprit of such heinous crime, destroying lives of minors and killing their souls, Court initiated a Sou Moto Appeal regarding the enhancement of the sentence of A2, i.e. Criminal Revision Application No.443 of 2005.
Do you think than these punishments were sufficient for the heinous crimes done against minors? Comment your opinion and start a discussion.
Share this article. Add this site to bookmarks. Visit daily to boost your legal knowledge.
Pingback: Identifying Digital Propaganda vs. Freedom of Expression – bharatlex-rinkutai.com
Pingback: When a Couple Turned Rape into Business: Full Analysis of Child Porn Case (Gujarat HC, 2010): Part 4 – bharatlex-rinkutai.com
Pingback: When a Couple Turned Rape into Business: Full Analysis of Child Porn Case (Gujarat HC, 2010): Part 3 – bharatlex-rinkutai.com
Pingback: When a Couple Turned Rape into Business: Full Analysis of Child Porn Case (Gujarat HC, 2010): Part 2 – bharatlex-rinkutai.com