JUDGMENT/ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant - State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 29.8.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case No. 113/2013, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306 IPC. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the 'parcha-bayan' of the deceased Vimla (Ex.P/23), it is clear that the allegations of commission of rape and abatement to commit suicide are proved against the accused respondent. It is argued that Onad Singh (PW-12), the then Sub Inspector of the Police Station Sadar, Bikaner in his court statement has verified that 'parcha-bayan' of deceased Vimla was recorded by him. It is further argued that Dr. Gajendra Saxena (PW-8) in his court statement has stated that before recording of the statement of deceased Vimla, he has given a certificate that she is fit to give her statement. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore submitted that the trial court has erred in not placing reliance on the said piece of evidence and has also erred in acquitting the accused respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306 IPC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore argued that it is a fit case, wherein leave be granted to file appeal against the impugned judgment. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused respondent has argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record against the accused respondent to connect him with the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306 IPC and therefore the trial court has rightly acquitted him from the aforesaid charges. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and carefully scrutinized the record. 6. The FIR No. 342/1993 was registered at the Police Station Sadar, Bikaner against the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 309 IPC on 8.9.1993 on the basis of 'parcha-bayan' (Ex.P/23) of deceased Vimla. It is noticed that in the said 'parcha-bayan', deceased Vimla has alleged that the accused respondent had sexually assaulted her while promising her for marriage. It is also alleged that when the deceased insisted for marriage, the accused respondent refused to marry her. 7. It is noticed that in the said 'parcha-bayan', deceased Vimla has alleged that the accused respondent had sexually assaulted her while promising her for marriage. It is also alleged that when the deceased insisted for marriage, the accused respondent refused to marry her. 7. During the course of trial, the brother-in-law, sister and other family members of the deceased have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. 8. Dr. Gajendra Sexana (PW-8) in his court statement has stated that on 8.9.1993, when the Magistrate came to the hospital, where the deceased was admitted, to record her dying declaration, at that time, he has given his opinion in writing that the patient is fit for giving her statement. The said witness in his cross examination has stated that the said dying declaration was not recorded in his presence. Interestingly, no such dying declaration recorded by any Magistrate has been produced by the prosecution. 9. PW-14 Satyendra Singh Ranawat, the then Addl. S.P. in his statement has specifically stated that he has not found any evidence against the accused respondent while conducting investigation. Similarly Suresh Chandra (PW-15), the then Dy. S.P., ATS, Jaipur in his statement has stated that one of the I.O. namely Mohan Singh has opined that the evidence, to connect the accused respondent with the commission of crime, has not been found during the course of investigation. 10. After taking into consideration the above piece of evidence and other evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306 IPC. 11. Having carefully scrutinized the record of the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to give any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306 IPC. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. 12. In view of the above discussion, no case for grant of leave is made out. Accordingly, this criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.