1.0 Present Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant State of Gujarat challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.2.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli passed in Sessions Case No.29 of 2011 acquitting the respondents hereinoriginal accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.0 Criminal prosecution was lodged against the respondents hereinoriginal accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that the respondents accused had lured daughter of complainant and thereby took her with him and kidnapped her with a view to have the sexual intercourse against her will and wish. That the FIR came to be lodged with Babara Police Station, Amreli on 1.4.2010 for the offences alleged to have been happened on 27.3.2010. After the investigation was concluded, the accused persons came to be chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence. The charge came to be framed against them vide Exh.5.The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court. That the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses at Exhs.10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26,, 27, 30 and 33. That the during the course of trial, the prosecution produced documentary evidences such as place of panchnama of offence, birth date certificate etc. That further statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused did not admit the guilt. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons for which they were chargesheeted by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons have kidnapped or run away with the daughter of the complainant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, the appellant State has preferred the Criminal Appeal.
3.0 Shri Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant State has vehemently submitted that the learned Sessions Court has materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons has abducted and kidnapped the victim daughter of the complainant. It is submitted that when it was found that the age of the victim daughter of the complainant was approximately 15 years i.e. minor, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have convicted the accused persons for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the respondents accused had committed the offence of kidnapping and luring the minor girl from her legal guardianship and the said fact has been proved from the evidence of the complainant, the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the accused. By making above submission, it is requested to allow / admit the present Criminal Appeal. No other submissions have been made.
4.0 Heard Shri Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and considered and gone through the entire impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court as well as as evidence received from the Record and Proceedings from the learned trial Court. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such on appreciation of evidence and even considering the deposition of the complainant herself and other evidence the learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that daughter of the complainant was kidnapped and / or abducted by the accused. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the prosecution has not examined and / or recorded the statement of the victim and daughter of the complainant who can be said to be best witness to prove whether she was kidnapped and / or abducted by the accused or not. This Court has also considered the evidence on record documentary as well as oral and even the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses from which it cannot be said that the daughter of the complainant was kidnapped and / or abducted by the accused persons. Considering the above, when the prosecution failed to prove and establish that the daughter of the complainant was abducted and / or kidnapped by the accused persons it is not required to be further consider whether the daughter of the complainant was aged 15 years or not. From the reasoning given by the learned trial Court and the evidence on record it appears that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court acquitting accused persons for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As such no other view is possible then the view taken by the learned trial Court.
5.0 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
6.0 Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove even there cannot be possible two views other than view taken by the learned trial Court and therefore, interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not warranted.
7.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
kaushik sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )