JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 263 of 1998. The said case was registered against the appellant-original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution case, Nutuankumar Arvindbhai is doing service as Junior Clerk in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. On 3.9.1987 Nutankumar's duty was in O.P.D. Department to take out register of patient case papers. At about 1:00 p.m. two persons came in his cabin and told him to give case paper at the earliest. Nutankumar told them to stand in queue. They got provoked and started abusing. Out of them one person had put on red shirt who hold Nutankumar by collar and gave punch on face and gave blow of hatha of chair, which was put over the table, on the palm of Nutankumar. Due to shouting policeman came in O.P.D. Department. P.W. No. 1 - caught-hold Vakhatsinh, Police Constable person with red-shirt, at that time, the person with red-shirt gave punch on the face so his upper left tooth came out. P.W. No. 3 Police Constable Pahadsinh Ditaji Bhedi and other staff persons rushed there. Police went in O.P.D. Department and caught-hold both the persons. The person with red shirt Rajusing Ajaysinh, Malsing Premsing Rajput - is accused No. 2. Both the persons are doing work in Civil Hospital Canteen. Nutankumar sustained injury in head and on right hand palm and Vakhatsinh's both the teeth were removed. Both the persons took treatment at hospital and thereafter the complainant lodged the complaint in Shahibaug Police Station. 3. On the basis of above allegations, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against them. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. 3. On the basis of above allegations, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against them. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. 6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, convicted the present appellant - accused. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction dated 13.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 263 of 1998, the present appellant - accused has preferred the present Appeal before this Court. 9. Heard Mr. Minesh Arenpuriya, learned advocate appearing for Mr. S.S. Gade, learned advocate for the appellant. He has contended that prosecution has examined the complainant P.W. No. 1 - Nutankumar Arvindbhai at Ex. 10 who has submitted that police has taken his signature on complaint and he has not lodged FIR. He had not gone to Shahibaug Police Station. He does not know a person with red shirt. He also submitted that he does not know that a person with red shirt has beaten him. He submitted that he does not know that Vakhatsinh, Police Constable ran to the place of incident. He submitted that it is not true that a person with red shirt gave punch on face and tooth fallen. He also submitted that it is not true that staff person caught hold of two persons and during interrogation name of the accused persons were given. 10. He has submitted that P.W. No. 1 Vakhatsinh U. Zala - Police Constable at Ex. He also submitted that it is not true that staff person caught hold of two persons and during interrogation name of the accused persons were given. 10. He has submitted that P.W. No. 1 Vakhatsinh U. Zala - Police Constable at Ex. 9 has stated that he was on duty at O.P.D. He submitted that during the fighting in crowd with P.W. No. 2 he entered in and tried to solve the same. He has submitted that from the crowd who gave punch blow on his face is not known to him. He has submitted that some person made mobile call and van had come and they caught hold the accused person. He has submitted in cross-examination that identification parade was carried out. He has submitted that he was unconscious for half an hour after the punch blow was given on his face. 11. He has submitted that Pahadsinh Ditaji Bhedi P.W. No. 3 submitted in his cross-examination at Ex. 13 that his duty was at O.P.D. at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. He has submitted that he and Vakhatsinh P.W. No. 1 rushed to place of offence. He has submitted that he had caught Rajusinh - accused No. 1 and Malsinh accused No. 2. He has submitted that as long time has passed away he could not find both the accused persons. He has submitted that Nitinbhai had gone to police station for complaint and investigating officer took away both the accused persons. In cross-examination he has submitted that from his sitting room casualty room is about 50 to 100 feet away from O.P.D. where the patients' case papers are to be registered and where the alleged offence was committed by the accused. He has submitted that he does not know anything about any incident took place in O.P.D. at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. He has submitted that police-van members have not caught accused persons. He has submitted in cross-examination that there was crowd of 50 to 60 people and Vakhatsinh P.W. No. 1 was fighting and, therefore, he and other persons interfered and separated them. He has submitted that it is not true that member of police-van had caught two persons and, thereafter he came to know. 12. He has submitted that Dr. Sudhir M. Mehta, P.W. No. 4 at Ex. He has submitted that it is not true that member of police-van had caught two persons and, thereafter he came to know. 12. He has submitted that Dr. Sudhir M. Mehta, P.W. No. 4 at Ex. 15 has submitted in cross-examination that Nutankumar had only bruises and Vakhatsinh's whole tooth was not broken but only crown of tooth was broken. 13. He has submitted that Nareshkumar H. Patel P.W. No. 5 at Ex. 19 has submitted that complaint is filed by Raj Villiam and where Raj Villiam is living is not known to him. He identified signature of Raj Villiam on Mark 8/2 at Ex. 20. 14. He has submitted that in absence of cogent evidence produced on record against the present appellant the learned Judge has committed grave error and wrongly convicted the appellant - accused. He has submitted to quash and set aside the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge or to grant probation to the present appellant. 15. Heard Mr. N.J. Shah, learned APP for the respondent - State. He has contended that injured person is a police constable serving at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and when quarrel took place near O.P.D. Department victim police constable rushed to the place for law and order, at that time present appellant provoked and beaten police constable and in result of that punch given to him on the face and crown of tooth was broken. The injured witness is public servant and in cross-examination some minor contradiction is made but that contradiction is not material contradiction. In the present case the injured was on duty and he was beaten by the present appellant. When the accused person has beaten a civilian, it cannot be taken leniently. To site an example to the head strong person in the society conviction of the present appellant is required to be confirmed. Therefore also, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge requires to be confirmed. 16. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers produced before me. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the rival parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. 16. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers produced before me. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the rival parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of the prosecution witness-complainant and also perused the charge framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that in the charge against the co-accused person who is acquitted by learned Judge the prosecution could not produce any supportable evidence against him and no acquittal appeal has been filed against accused No. 2. 17. When the quarrel took place near O.P.D. Department victim police constable rushed to the place for law and order, at that time, present appellant provoked and beaten police constable and in result of that punch was given to him on the face and crown of tooth was broken. The injured witness is public servant and in cross-examination some minor contradiction is made but that contradiction is not material contradiction. In the present case medical expert is examined by the prosecution and learned Judge has rightly considered evidence of the medical expert and it is proved through oral version of doctor as well as evidence of the eyewitness P.W. No. 1 Pahadsinh P.W. No. 3 Vakhatsinh. The prosecution has completely proved chain of evidence against the present appellant. So far as argument for probation is concerned, the learned Judge has taken very lenient view and conviction of present appellant is only for a period of one year. As per provisions of Section 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, present appellant is convicted for very lesser punishment. 18. In view of above, I am in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and I am of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the learned trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 19. Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, present appeal is dismissed. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 19. Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 263 of 1998, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. The appellant-accused shall be taken into custody. Time to surrender shall be for a period of four weeks from today. 20. In view of order passed in Criminal Appeal the Criminal Misc. Application No. 8972 of 2016 stands disposed off. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.