JUDGMENT R. P. DHOLARIA, J. The present application under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant State of Gujarat for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.08.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.30 of 2011 acquitting the respondent herein original accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under: 2.1 The complainant Sandhyaben Manharbhai Patel, mother of the victim, lodged the complaint before Panigate Police Station, Vadodara being I C.R.No.146/2008 against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.06.2008, during the period between 10.00 to 12.00 hours, accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 kidnapped minor daughter of the complainant from Sayajipura Village from the lawful guardianship by coaxing and tempting under temptation of marriage and with an intention to commit sexual intercourse, took her at different places and committed rape on her against her wish and desire. It is stated by the complainant in complaint that the age of her daughter was less than 17 years. 3. We have heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant State of Gujarat. We have perused of the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as depositions of material witnesses made available to us by learned APP. 4. P.W.1 Sandhyaben Manharbhai Patel, mother of the victim examined at Ex.19. She has deposed that on 21.06.2008 due to unhappiness with the family members, her daughter left her parental home and went to the house of her friend and, thereafter, she came back at her own volition. She deposed that it was not happened that the accused - Hardik Patel took the victim by coaxing and tempting under temptation of marriage to her and committed sexual intercourse with her. She deposed that at the relevant time her daughter was aged about 18 years. She is familiar with the accused and nothing has happened with her daughter. She deposed that her daughter got married and settled in U.S.A. since last five years and there is no possibility to return to India. 5. She deposed that at the relevant time her daughter was aged about 18 years. She is familiar with the accused and nothing has happened with her daughter. She deposed that her daughter got married and settled in U.S.A. since last five years and there is no possibility to return to India. 5. P.W.3 Sanjaybhai Vithalbhai Patel examined at Ex.24, who is uncle of the victim. He deposed that in 2008, Sandhyaben informed him that her daughter went to the hospital, but she did not return till the noon and, thereafter extensive search was made but she could not trace out. In the result, on suspicion, Sandhyaben, complainant had lodged the complaint that some one took his cousin (victim) by coaxing and tempting her. This witness has not supported the prosecution case. 6. P.W.5 Dr. Rameshbhai Vishvanath Rajyaguru examined at Ex.28. He has deposed that he has examined the victim on 28.06.2008. He deposed that he issued medical certificate, Ex.28 and recorded the history as per police yadi, which reads as under. As per police yadi, the victim was kidnapped and raped on 21.06.2008 at 11.00 a.m., when going for tuition by boy said Hardik Dipakbhai Patel, aged 22 years of same village : Sayajipura and they reported to Panigate Police Station at 7.30 p.m. After kidnapping they went to Boy™s mama™s home, Nar (Tal. Tarapur) and resided for 3-4 days and then they went to Boy™s Masi™s home at Pij (Taluka: Nadiad). During these days from 21-6-08 to 28-06-08, the version of the girl was that they doing intercourse (sexual act) for two times with boy.‌ This witness deposed that upon physical examination, he has not found any external injury over any part of body. There was no injury marks on her private part nor stains of semen or blood were found. He deposed that in view of the aforesaid facts, it is not possible to give exact opinion that there was any sexual intercourse upon her between 21.06.2008 to 28.06.2008. 7. From overall appreciation of evidence on record, it clearly emerges that the victim herself could not be examined as she subsequently got married and settled in U.S.A. and her presence could not be secured by the prosecution. Even the mother and uncle of the victim have been examined by the prosecution, but they have not, at all, supported the case of the prosecution. Even the mother and uncle of the victim have been examined by the prosecution, but they have not, at all, supported the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, they have deposed that they have lodged the complaint on suspicion against the accused and further they have clearly and categorically admitted that the accused had not kidnapped and committed any sexual intercourse upon the victim. Looking to the school leaving certificate of the victim, the birth date of the victim is 28.06.1991 and consequently therefore the age of the victim at the time of incident is proved to be above 17 years. 8. Similarly, the prosecution has also tried to bring on record the evidence in the nature of corroborative by way of examining the doctor, who examined the victim after the alleged incident. P.W.5 has deposed in his deposition that he has narrated the history as per the police yadi and not as per the version given by the victim. 9. Other corroborative evidence do not disclose the involvement of the accused with the alleged commission of the offence. Precisely, relying upon the aforesaid evidence and the depositions of the witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the finding that the incident had not happened, the manner in which the complaint was lodged. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that the victim was settled at U.S.A. Even the medical evidence as well as the report of the serological do not suggest or link the accused with the alleged commission of crime. In view of the aforesaid set of evidence, it cannot be said that the accused is guilty for the alleged offence. Learned Sessions Judge had, therefore, not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The evidence on record do not indicate that there is any possibility of reversal of judgment of acquittal into conviction. Therefore, no purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal. 10. In the result, application for leave to appeal is refused. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.1581 of 2013 stands dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be transmitted back to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal dismissed.