- (1.)THIS appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 31. 12. 1988 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1988, whereby, the respondent-accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
(2.)THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2. 1 On 11. 01. 1988, at around 1745 hrs. , while the complainant, Tarkeshwari Bipinchandra Upadhyaya, was returning to her Hostel, after attending the College, at that time, the appellant obstructed her way and thereafter, allegedly compelled her to board a rickshaw by threatening her of dire consequences. The complainant was taken to Anand Bus-stand and from there went to Dakor, District Kheda. The complainant was then taken to his quarters and informed her that she be prepared to marry him. The complainant was locked up in the quarters. On the next day, i. e. 12. 01. 1988, when the relatives of the complainant reached the quarters allotted to the respondent, having received the information from some where that the complainant has been locked up at the said place, the respondent fled the place. 2. 2 Therefore, a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent with Vidhyanagar Police Station, which was registered as I-C. R. No. 8/1988. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, as sufficient material was found against the respondent, he was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court of learned JMFC, Anand. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda at Nadiad and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 106 of 1988. 2. 3 On production of the accused, charge was framed against him but, as he pleaded not guilty, trial was initiated. To prove the case against the respondent, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses and had placed reliance upon several documentary evidence. On submission of the closing purshis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. was recorded. Ultimately, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him, by impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.)IT was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Court below is against the provisions of law; the Court below has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and that looking to the provisions of law, it is established that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence against the respondent beyond doubt. Learned APP has taken us through the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record.