JUDGMENT :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No.40 of 2018 for the offences under sections 307, 364 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 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) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent accused.

2. The facts as per prosecution case are that, on 22.06.2018 in evening, when the complainant - Vibhutiben Sureshbhai Rathod was washing the clothes out side her house, the accused - Subhash @ Popat Rameshbhai Padaya, who happens to be the cousin of the complainant ('Foi no Dikro'), came there and told her that to come and marry with him and will live together. Therefore, the complainant has gone with him. The accused has taken her at the Farm of Ravjibhai at village Nagadka, where he took her near the Well and told her to marry with him. When she refused for marriage, the accused has pushed her and the complainant fell down in the Well. Since the complainant can swim, she survived and she shouted for help. After repeated attempt, some one has come for her help and thereafter, that person has called her parents and others. Her parents came immediately there and rescued the complainant. Thereafter, all the persons went to lodge a complaint at the police station. The complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before the Gondal Taluka Police Station, Gondal, which was registered as I-C.R. No.92 of 2018 for the offences under sections 307, 364 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence in form of medical evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Gondal. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Gondal as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Gondal, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.6 against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 5 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah appearing for the applicant State and have minutely examined the documentary evidence provided to us by learned APP during the course of hearing.

8.1 Looking to the complaint itself, the facts narrated in the complaint cannot be believable at all. It cannot be believable that ; (i) when someone, though relative, has told to come and marry with him and any girl is ready to go immediately with that person, (ii) if the girl is not ready to go and marry with him, then why she we