( 1 ) THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 01. 02. 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Palanpur in Special Case No. 160 of 2006, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2. 1 On 21. 08. 2006, the complainant was travelling by auto rickshaw of one Parthibhai Kalubhai. The accused no. 1 was also in the same rickshaw. When the autho rickshaw reached the cross road of Vaghrol, the accused no. 1 jumped out of the rickshaw and ran towards the well. The complainant commented about the accused no. 1 falling from the rickshaw. Thereafter, while the complainant was sitting near the road, the accused came with the sticks and inflicted stick blows upon the complainant and ran away.

2. 2 Therefore a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondents with Gadh Police Station vide C. R. No. I- 117 of 2006. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondents were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against them. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court.

2. 3 The trial was initiated against the respondents and during the course of trial the prosecution examined 05 witnesses as oral evidences and 10 documents as documentary evidences. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr. P. C. , and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgement and order dated 01. 02. 2008.

2. 4 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

( 3 ) IT was contended by Mr. Kodekar, learned APP that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.

( 4 ) AT the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M. S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Anr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below. '

4. 1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles:"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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pu