JUDGMENT : 1. Present Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short) is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Gandhinagar (hereinafter be referred to as "trial Court") in Sessions Case No.71 of 2004, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents herein - original accused persons from the charges levelled against them under Sections 366, 368, 493, 498, 384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had married with one Bhikhiben Shankarbhai Chaudhari before 20 years and by the said wedlock Bhikhiben delivered two children namely Nilam and Jemini. 2.1 It is further case of the prosecution that the brother of the complainant namely Babubhai was residing in Bombay with his family. Babubhai had married with sister of the Bhikhiben. Since there was a dispute between Babubhai and his wife, the Babubhai had given divorce and because of that dispute, the brother of Bhikhiben i.e. respondent No.1 came to the house of the complainant along with other persons named in the FIR and had discussed about the divorce of his brother and the sister of the respondent No.1 and it was objected by the family members, therefore, respondent No.1 had administered threats to get divorce and thereafter, on the day of incident i.e. 4.5.2003, the complainant went to Mehsana and while returning from Mehsana at night hours, he inquired to his children about the whereabouts of Bhikhiben-the mother of the children and in turn, the children have informed present respondent No.1 along with respondent No.4- Chaudhari Vinubhai Ramsangbhai along with other came to his house in Jeep Car and they had taken away the wife of the complainant i.e. Bhikhiben along with them and also conveyed the message that they will send her back on next day. 2.2 At that time, the wife of the complainant also carried two briefcases containing cloths and golden ornaments. Thereafter, the complainant has made inquiry at village Pamor where the in-laws of the complainant were residing. However, upon inquiry he got information that his wife was not there at village Pamor and then again he has telephoned on second day but the whereabouts of his wife was not found. Thereafter, the complainant has made inquiry at village Pamor where the in-laws of the complainant were residing. However, upon inquiry he got information that his wife was not there at village Pamor and then again he has telephoned on second day but the whereabouts of his wife was not found. It is further case of the prosecution that the complainant has also made inquiry with his relative but his wife Bhikhiben was not traced out and thereafter, on 10.5.2003 the complainant came to know that his brother’s wife has been sold at village Dagavadiya and therefore, he is apprehending that his wife was also harassed by the respondent with a view to get her married with other person and in absence of the complainant, with an intention of marriage of wife of the complainant at other place, the wife of the complainant namely Bhikhiben was kidnapped or wrongly confined by the accused persons. 2.3 It is further case of the complainant that the informant went to the concerned police station but they have refused to record the FIR therefore, the complainant constrained to file private complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. The learned Magistrate initiated an inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., and investigation was commenced for the offence of abduction and other allegations made in the said complaint. 2.4 The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and drawn necessary panchnama and on found sufficient evidence against the respondent accused, an offence was registered and the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mansa. 2.5 The chargesheet was filed for the alleged offence and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore after completing the formalities and procedure under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the case was committed in the court of sessions and the same was registered as Session Case No. 71 of 2004. The trial Court, on receipt of the papers, framed the charges against the respondents accused at Exh.6 and the accused pleaded not guilty, therefore the trial Court issued summons to the witnesses. 2.6 To prove the charge against the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence referred in paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment and order. 2.6 To prove the charge against the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence referred in paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment and order. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution and after recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused persons stated that they wants to examine the defence witness and the trial Court has considered the request of the accused and allowed them to examine the defence witnesses viz. D.W. 1-Virjibhai Bhalabhai Chaudhari at Exh.35 and D,W.2- Maniben Shankarbhai at Exh.36. After going through the oral as well as the documentary evidence and after considering the arguments advanced by both the sides the trial Court has passed order of acquittal in favour of the respondentsaccused. 2.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.12.2004 passed by trial Court in Sessions Case No.71 of 2004, the prosecution has filed present Appeal. 3. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned APP for the appellant- State and Ms. Riya A. Patel, learned Counsel for Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned Counsel for the respondents and Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, leaned Counsel for original complainant. I have also perused the record. 4. Ms. Bhatt, learned APP for the State has submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error of law and on facts both while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses led by the prosecution and also failed to appreciate the arguments advanced by the prosecution in its true and proper spirit. 4.1 It is also further contended that the witnesses being P.W. 1 to P.W.3 and P.W.-9 have fully supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution, however the trial Court has not considered the said aspect in its true and proper spirit while passing impugned judgment and order of acquittal. It is contended that the prosecution has sufficiently established guilt on the part of the respondents and even the intention on the part of the respondents for commission of alleged offence was also brought to the notice by way of documentary and evidence and reasons for the commission of alleged offence was also sufficiently proved before the trial Court however, the trial Court failed to appreciate the said facts in its true and proper spirit while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned APP has further contended that the victim P.W.3 being wife of P.W. 1 was illegally kept in confinement for period of almost 8 days and that fact was completely corroborated by the evidence of the witnesses and thus, the ingredient of Sections 366, 368, 493, 498, 384 and 114 of I.P.C., is completely satisfied however, the trial Court failed to appreciate the said facts in its true and proper spirit. 4.2 Learned APP contended that arguments advanced by the prosecution at Exh.37 was not considered by the trial Court in its true and proper spirit and also the decision of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court referred in the written arguments was also not considered the trial Court. 4.3 Over and above the aforesaid submission, learned APP urges that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is bad in law, erroneous, illegal, perverse and the same is not in consonance with the settled legal principle and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 5. As against that Ms. Riya A. Patel, learned Counsel for Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order under challenge is completely in consonance with the settled principle of law and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has passed impugned judgment and order. 5.1 It is also further contended that the story put forward by the prosecution itself is not digestible and is completely got up and concocted and that fact was found during the course of trial and thus, after considering the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the story of abduction and kidnapping adhered by the complainant of his wife is unbelievable and there was no sufficient material or evidence for the same and therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 5.2 It is also further contended that in fact, against the complainant many complaints were filed for theft of vehicles and the complainant was also involved in many cases in Ahmedabad city and surrounding areas and the complainant has stated incorrect facts before the trial Court and he has evaded the reply to the said question put to him during the cross examination and gave evasive reply to the said querry. 6. The trial Court has noted all these facts. It is also come on record that the complainant was day in and day out visited the Mansa Police Station, as he is in connivance with the concerned Police Officer and used to stand as a panch-witness in as many as 25 to 30 cases. So as and when the concerned investigation officer wants to prepare the panchnama he got the signature of present complainant. The said fact was come on record and it was proved by the material and cogent evidence produced before the trial Court. 7. Even at the investigation stage, when the accused preferred an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 5477 of 2003 before this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the Court has observed in the order dated 31.7.2003 that "...investigation into the aforesaid M. Case No.2/2003 at Mansa Police Station shall be entrusted to an independent officer and the aforesaid constable viz. Mr. Gambirsingh V. Jhala shall not be allowed to interfere in any manner whatsoever to ensure that similar allegations as made in the present application cannot made in future." Hence, the complainant is having relation with P.W.-9 viz. Gambhirsingh V. Zala and therefore, after considering all these facts and examining the evidence of the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly passed the order of acquittal and thus present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed. 8. At this juncture, Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned Counsel for the original complainant who has not filed his Vakalatname and assisted learned APP has submitted that the accused are near relative of the Bhikhibenvictim and wife of the complainant and accused No.1 is real brother of the victim Bhikhiben and No.4 is cousin brother of the Bhikhiben and therefore, by persuasion of the family members they have settled the dispute between the parties. 9. 9. It is also relevant to note herein that during the pendency of present Appeal accused No.5 Chaudhari Manubhai Chhaganbhai was died and his death certificate was produced on record on earlier occasion and therefore, present appeal qua the said accused was abated. 10. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without dwelling into the evidence of the trial Court and without going into the reasoning recorded by the trial Court in paragraph No.12 onwards, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court deserves to be confirmed and the same shall not be disbursed. 11. It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras – 37 to 40 as under:- “37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: - "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. 4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: - "8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 39. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 9. It is also appropriate to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:- “Head Note B. - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.378 – Appeal against acquittal – General principles regarding the power and duty of the appellate court, reiterated – Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.419- 20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus: “42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three- Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.” 12. The Court has framed the general guild lines and principles while exercising the power under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the the judgment of the acquittal and under the general guild lines issued by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that present appeal does not deserve to be entertained and the same requires to be dismissed. 13. Further, the dispute between the private parties has already settled outside the Court and therefore, nothing remains further in the matter. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order and the same is in consonance with the settled legal principle and therefore, the same is hereby confirmed. 14. Hence, present Appeal filed under Section 378(1)(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The order dated 27.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, in Sessions Case No.71 of 2004 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, furnished by the respondent accused stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.