JUDGMENT :

Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.

1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, the same were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment and order.

2. These appeals, under the provisions of Sections 372 and 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) respectively, have been filed by the original complainant and the State assailing the judgment and order dated 03.09.2012, passed in Atrocity Case No. 4 of 2010 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhotaudepur, recording the acquittal.

3. Facts in brief are that on 27.03.2010, when the original complainant was going on Active motorcycle as pillion rider along with one Minitaben at whose place, the original complainant was serving, the respondent-accused got stopped the vehicle, and first threatened Minitaben to kill keeping grudge of Court case as also to implicate her husband. Thereafter, the respondent-accused also threatened the complainant to get committed rape on her if she would not leave job at Minitaben's place. Further, the respondent-accused also abused the complainant of her caste. Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (Atrocity Act) for which, FIR came to be registered against him.

3.1 Upon FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The case was committed to the Sessions/Special Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1895 of 2012 and learned advocate Mr. Neel P. Lakhani for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1638 of 2012 as well as learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the for the respondent-original accused, in both the appeals.

4.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondent-accused.

4.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as, PW-1 Jasodaben Maganbhai Rathva, Exh.44 has clearly supported her case as per the complaint filed by her and stated that on the date of incident, the accused threatened the complainant and also abused her of her caste. She has also stated about administering threat to Minitaben with whom, the complainant was going on motorcycle. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the deposition of this witness, however, the learned trial Judge did not believe the case of the prosecution and thereby, has committed a grave error.

4.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further took this Court through the deposition of PW-6 Parsuram Sagarsinh Chauhan, Exh.59, who is the husband of Minitaben and submitted that this witness has also supported the case of the prosecution in toto, however, the learned tri