ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. This application is preferred by the State of Gujarat-applicant-appellant in a proposed appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03.12.2016, recorded by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2013. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as genesis of the complaint filed by the complainant-Raojibhai Nathabhai Solanki is that he initially received injuries and later on when he was hospitalized, he succumbed to such injuries and a complaint was registered against four accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code upon death of the complainant. As per the case of the prosecution, on 6.6.2013 at about 13:00 hours, at the sim of Tavadiyapura situated at village Khadol, the complainant was quarrellings and abusing his wife in respect of domestic work. At that time, accused persons asked him not to abuse his wife and took up the quarrel wherein, the complainant received multiple injuries and as against, accused No. 4 also received injuries by knife hurled by the complainant-deceased. At the end of the investigation, the case was tried by the learned trial Judge and ultimately, on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, more particularly, eye-witnesses-PW1-Madokben Nathabhai Solanki at Exh:15-mother of the deceased and Dr. Anilkumar Rambahadur-PW-2 at Exh:30 who carried out postmortem report, were examined threadbare. At the trial, after considering the medical reports, nature of injuries as shown in the postmortem report and depositions of the witnesses along with cause of death, concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt regarding charge of culpable homicide and ultimately, disbelieved the case of prosecution under Sections 302, 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC and acquitted all the accused from the said charges. However, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused under Section 323 read with Section of the IPC and sentenced them to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo further imprisonment of two months. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the acquittal of the accused persons, basically under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC, the appellant-accused-State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal. 4. Mr. 2,000/- in default, to undergo further imprisonment of two months. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the acquittal of the accused persons, basically under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC, the appellant-accused-State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal. 4. Mr. K.P Raval, learned APP appearing for the State invited our attention to the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC qua the accused contended that learned Judge committed error in not believing the case of prosecution under Section 302 and 114 of the IPC. As many as 19 injuries were received by the complainant who succumbed to such injuries. Testimonies of PW-2 reveals possibility of death as a result of such injuries. It is submitted that recovery panchnama of the muddamal stick and FSL Report also reveals that the acquittal order by the learned Sessions Judge was not based on proper appreciation of evidence and the approach was casual, callous and routine. Even a single and solitary witness if found having credible testimony would be sufficient to bring the guilt to cause for conviction. Even otherwise also, complaint at Exh:98 was the declaration of author of the complaint in the facts of this case, the injured, but later on, succumbed to such injuries and there was no specification for not believing such complaint. Thus, postmortem report of the deceased at Exh:33 coupled with testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, all three vital pieces of evidence are not appreciated and accordingly leave to appeal be granted as prayed for so that appeal filed by the State can be finally heard on merit. 5. Having heard Mr. K.P Raval, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-State, we are of the view that 19 injuries reflected in column-17 of postmortem report have no nexus with the cause of death as no such injuries internally lead to cause of death and all such injuries were opined by PW-2 as abrasion and CT Scan of brain, X-ray of chest, abdomen, pelvis, thigh and waist of the deceased reveals no injuries. Even it was not a case of broken ribs causing any internal injuries to any organ including lungs. The complainant was hospitalized and was given treatment. Even it was not a case of broken ribs causing any internal injuries to any organ including lungs. The complainant was hospitalized and was given treatment. The cause of scuffle do not reveal any intention on the part of the accused to commit crime under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It was a quarrel that took place when the deceased was abusing his wife. Admitted fact remained that accused has also received injury by knife so inflicted by the victim-deceased. The learned trial Judge has discussed direct evidence meticulously threadbare and considered the facts, arguments, and material on record as required under law. Even by applying provisions of Evidence Act under the circumstances, we find no substance. No interference is called for by this Court in this judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. 6. In view of the above, leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the present appeal also stands dismissed.