The presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, requiring compelling evidence of illegality or error for any interference by the appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 6^th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2004 on 30.09.2011, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short.) and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT .

1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 On 10.09.2000, the complainant was going towards her residence on her Scooty motorcycle after appearing for a test in Alpha Classes at around 12:15 Hrs and while she was on the Mangnath Road, in Junagadh, opposite the Ranavav Chowk, the accused halted her and placed a knife on her neck and forcibly sat behind her on the scooty and took her to Yogi studio near Bhutnath. The accused forcibly made her take some photographs with the intention of getting married to her, abducted her and threatened to kill her father and younger brother and a complaint was filed by the complainant at Junagadh City ‘B’ Division Police Station under Sections 363 , 366 and 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , (hereianfter referred to as the I.P.C) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which was registered at Junagadh City ‘B’ Division Police Station I-C.R. No.288 of 2000.

2.2 The Investigating Officer drew the necessary panchnamas, seized the necessary documents and filed a charge-sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Session Case No.63 of 2004.

2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 3, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and eleven documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.37, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges leveled against him.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to