JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2006 acquitting the respondent-original accused from the offence punishable under sections 332, 333, 286 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

2. The case of the prosecution case is that The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Ramubhai Bijalbhai Charel, Unarmed Constable (Buckle No. 1556) lodged the complaint against the accused to the effect that on 3/4/2006 at about 20:30 hours, Lunawada Police arrested the accused in C.R. No. I-28/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 4/5/2006, PSI, Lunawada Police Station, complainant, Police Constable Kanubhai, Police Constable Mahendrabhai and Police Constable Abhesinh took the accused at their Police Station for inquiry in the aforesaid offences. During the inquiry, the accused got excited and attacked on the complainant with the stick and injured the complainant. The accused also gave fist blows on the mouth of the complainant and one teeth complainant is also broken. The accused had also torn the uniform of the complainant. At that time, the other Police personnel came to the rescue and defend complainant from further beating. As, the accused had beaten the complainant, when the complainant was duty with stick and injured the complainant, the complainant had lodged the complaint against the accused with Lunawada Police Station, which was registered a numbered as C.R. No. 1-33 of 2006. The Police, thereafter prepared a Panchnama of the place of the offence and the Medical Certificate of the treatment was also obtained and after investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 333, 186, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lunawada. As the Offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was transferred to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals-Godhra, which was ultimately registered and numbered as Sessions Case No. 95/2006, who on the conclusion of the trial by judgment and order dated 20/9/2006 acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal, present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State.

4. Learned APP Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in acquitting the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against him. He has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondent has committed offence under sections 332, 333, 186 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of Bombay Police Act. He has further argued that Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. He has further argued that the trial court has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. He has further argued that the offence punishable under sections 332, 333, 186 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of Bombay Police Act, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the Sessions Court. He has further argued that though the prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court not believed their evidence and acquitted the accused erroneously.

Making above submissi