JUDGMENT :

1. Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat and Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant – original complainant challenging the judgement and order dated 14/12/2012 passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (Atrocity) Case No.44 of 2009 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused / respondent Nos.1 to 8 from the offence punishable under sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, under section 135 of Bombay Police Act and under section 3(1)(10) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is that the complainant has alleged in the complaint that Accused No. 1 to 4 on 13/06/2009 were making a thorn boundary in the back side of the complainant house and complainant had asked them not to make that thorn boundary due to which Accused persons got angry and had ran with Dhariyu, Lakdi, Khuhadi to beat Complainant and had abused on caste and threatened him and complainant had gone inside the house than accused No. 5 to 8 had come and threatened the complainant and therefore on 29/06/2009 complaint is given by complainant against the Accused persons, for the aforesaid offences.

3. Thereafter, the investigation was set in motion and the investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses, panchnama of the scene of offence, other panchnamas were prepared and completed other procedure and as there was sufficient against the accused, chargesheet was filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and was numbered as Special Atrocity Case No.44 of 2009.

4. The learned Sessions Judge before whom the case was committed, framed the Charge. The accused denied the contents of the charge. As a result, trial was conducted by the Sessions Judge. Further Statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which accused / respondent denied the charges and prayed for trial. Upon recording of the Further Statement of the accused, arguments were heard by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter trial was resulted into acquittal of all the 8 accused from the charges levelled against them, as a result of which the present appeals are filed by the State of Gujarat and the complainant challenging the acquittal.

5. Ms.Asmita Patel, learned APP for the State in Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2013 and Mr.Prakash Pandya, learned advocate for the complainant in Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2013 have submitted that the judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against the evidence on record and provision of law. The learned Special Judge has not appreciated and accepted the evidence which is corroborated by the version of the eye witness. The learned Special Judge has also not appreciated the evidence of the investigating officer in its true and correct perspective. It is further submitted that Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the Special Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them. It is further submitted that the prosecution has proved that the respondent has committed the offence under sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, under section 135 of Bombay Police Act and under section 3(1)(10) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that the Special Judge has acquitted the respondents / accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. It is further submitted that the Special Judge has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. It is further submitted that the off