ORDER :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. The present Appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2019, whereby the respondent – accused came to be acquited for the offences punishable under section 307 and 303 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short) read with section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The applicant – State of Gujarat has preferred this application to grant leave to appeal as provided under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ‘the Code’ for short).

2. The factual matrix of the present matter is as under:

2.1 It is the case of prosecution that complainant Jitendrakumar Kanaiyalal Barot lodged complaint on 18.05.2018 before the Kalol City Police Station being CR No. I- 60 of 2018 against the respondent – accused under sections 307 and 323 of the IPC and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. As per the case of the complainant the accused had some earlier quarrel with his son – Tapan and on 18.05.2018 at about 19:30 hours the accused had met with his son Tapan near Ramji Mandir at Barotvas Chowk in Kalol and has inflicted blows to his son Tapan on various parts of the body like neck, head and back with an intention to kill his son and therefore his son was taken to the hospital for treatment and accordingly as per the case of the prosecution the accused person with the clear intention to cause death of the complainant has assaulted upon the son of the complainant and therefore FIR came to be registered on 18.05.2018 before the Kalol City Police Station being CR No. I-60 of 2018 against the respondent – accused under sections 307 and 323 of the IPC and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2.2 In pursuance to the complaint lodged by the complainant, the investigating agency conducted its investigation and collected evidence in the form of statement of witnesses as well as documentary evidence and after having found sufficient material against the respondent accused the chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol. Since the said Court did not have any jurisdiction to try the offence registered by way of the present FIR, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kalol as provided under section 209 of the Code. Upon committal of the case to the Sesssion Court, Kalol, the said Court framed the charge at Exh. 3 against the respondent accused for the offence. The respondent accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ by the statement recorded at Exh. 4 and claimed to proceed with the trial.

2.3 In order to proceed with the trial, in view of the charge framed by the Sessions Court, Kalol the prosecution examined 5 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences which are as under:-

It also transpires from the record of the trial Court that the compromise pursis is filed at Exh. 9 by the defense during the trial.

2.4 Upon conclusion of the trial, the respondent - accused was generally examined under the provisions of section 313 of the Code and in the further statement the respondent – accused denied his involvement in the alleged crime and stat