(1.) As all these Appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 15/2011, two Appeals preferred by the original accused challenging their conviction and other two Appeals preferred by the State as well as the original complainant -victim for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused, they are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.) The prosecution case in a nutshell is as under;
(3.) Shri Tejas Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the original accused. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that the learned trial Court has materially erred in relying upon the deposition of the victim, P.W. 3 as well as the deposition of the husband of the victim -Gordhanbhai -P.W. 10 while convicting the original accused. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that in fact the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that both the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 3 as well as P.W. 10 both are not reliable and trustworthy. It is submitted that both the witnesses have not come out with true case and facts. It is submitted that the deposition of both the witnesses are contradictory and they are not corroborated by deposition of each other and/or corroborated by other independent witness.