JUDGMENT :

S.H. Vora, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.1.2020 passed by the learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha @ Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2019, whereby the respondent accused came to be acquitted from the charge of offences under section 307 of IPC, 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. According to the prosecution case, on 12.7.2018, at about 21:00 hrs., at village Vagdadi, present respondent accused Lalabhai due to suspicious nature, got enraged and gave filthy abuses to the prosecution witness Kasnabhai and asked why did you come to the house of your widow maternal aunt and thereby, inflicted blow of stick with iron ring on the head of the prosecution witness kasnabhai as well as on the fact and ear and thereby, caused fatal injuries. Thus, the respondent accused has committed breach of notification issued by the District Magistrate under the Gujarat Police Act. Therefore, complainant Champaben Bumbadiya lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before Palanpur Taluka Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. No. 81/2018 for the offences under sections 307, 323, 294(b) of IPC and also u/s. 135 of the G.P. Act. At the end of trial, the respondent accused came to be acquitted from the charges of offence u/s. 307 of the IPC, but he came to be sentenced for 30 months for the offence u/s. 325 of the IPC r/w section 135 of the G.P. Act.

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, Palanpur. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Palanpur as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Palanpur, 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 15 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 4 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 there was a dispute with the injured Kasnabhai with regard to right of way and as said Kasnabhai fell down, he sustained injury and on account of previous enmity, false case is filed against him and falsely framed him in the present offence. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused from the offence of section 307 of the IPC 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. It appears that there was a dispute between the respondent accused and injured witness Kasnabhai with regard to right of way and the parties were negotiating for the settlement. It also transpires that as there were quarrels