Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 289 (RAJ)

Jayanarayan Khateek v. State of Rajasthan

1996-03-18

D.C.DALELA

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - By the Order dated 3.11.1995, the Learned Judge Special Court SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Jodhpur discharged the accused-respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 from the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for the other offences under the Indian Penal Code the case was sent to the learned CJM, Jodhpur for trial and disposal according to law. Against this order of discharge, this revision has been preferred. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned trial Court while discharging the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from the offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has held that the complainant Jayanarayan was not insulted, intimidated or humiliated in a place within public view. From the evidence recorded Under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. it seems that the alleged humiliating words were uttered inside a room of a building called Ranveer Bhawan. The allegation of the complainant is that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have uttered insulting and humiliating words to him, but from the evidence of the complainant Jayanarayan himself recorded Under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code it is quite clear that the alleged words have been uttered by the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 inside a room of a building called Ranveer Bhawan. Obviously the words were uttered in a place which was not within the public view. Section 3(i)(x) of the said Act provides that if any body who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable. Evidently no case has been made out from the evidence recorded Under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code that accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have allegedly insulted or intimidated the complainant in any place within public view. Therefore, I think that the learned trial Court has rightly discharged the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from the offence Under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The petition have no force is hereby dismissed in limine.Revision Dismissed. *******