Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 969 (RAJ)

Brahmachari Lalit Baba v. State of Rajasthan

1996-08-26

R.R.YADAV

body1996
Honble YADAV, J. – The revisionist has filed the present revision against the order dated 8.9.92 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh whereby he accepted the FR No.4/91 pertaining to FIR No. 200/90 PS Sujangarh and rejected the protest petition of the complainant-revisionist for the reasons disclosed in his impugned order. (2). Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the complainant-revisionist filed a complaint in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh against the present respondent NO. 1.8.90 for the offences under Sec. 119, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 190, 217, 295, 452, 352, 323, 325, 364 and 392, IPC with the allegations that on 5.4.88 in the evening when the revisionist was sitting in the Temple of Santoshi Ma and doning Pooja Path, accused No.1 to 12 came there armed with lethal weapons like lathis, Kulharies, Sariyas, dandas and threw awa articles of Pooja, abused the revisionist by mother and sister and began to beat him. The accused-persons caught hold of his hair and dragged him through the stones from Dungar Shree Balaji down to Bhawani Tea Stall. The accused-persons tiled the hands of the revisionist and mercilessly beaten him with lathis, Dandas and Sariyas causing numberous external injuries as well as internal injuries. The blood began to come out of his mouth which spread on his `Chola and body. It is further alleged that on wireless message having been sent accused No.13 with force consisting of accused No.14 to 17 came in a jeep at 9.30 P.M. Being public servant, accused No.13 mis-used his position and in dereliction of his duty, began to give kicks to the revi- sionist and also gave a blow with butt of pistol on the right eye of the revisionist. Simultaneously, accused No.14 to 17 also began to give beating to him and by use of force, they took away Rs. 3750/- from the pocket of the revisionist being the collection for construction of the temple of Santoshi Ma and Chadhawa money. The accused-persons also threatened the owner of Bhawani Tea Stall that if he dared to give evidence against them, he will be dealt in similar manner and they also told him to close the hotel and go away. Thereafter, accused No.2 and 13 took him to police station, Sujangarh in the jeep with accused No.4 and 10. The accused-persons also threatened the owner of Bhawani Tea Stall that if he dared to give evidence against them, he will be dealt in similar manner and they also told him to close the hotel and go away. Thereafter, accused No.2 and 13 took him to police station, Sujangarh in the jeep with accused No.4 and 10. At the police station, accused No. 2,4,10,13 and 19 treated him inhumanly and further beaten him. It is also alleged that after beating him, a danda was thrust in the anus of the revisionist and then he was put in the lock-up. It is alleged that the revisionist became unconscious. The revisionist regained became unconscious. The revisionist regained consciousness on the next day. Accused No.19 with the aid of accused No.4 and 10 fabricated a false case of recovery of 10 grams of `Ganja under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and lodged an F.I.R. No. 47 on 5.4.88 against the revisionist and produced him before the learned Magistrate on 6.4.88. Having noticed the injuries all over body of the revisionist and blood spread on his Chola, he was ordered to be medically examined under police custody by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh. (3). After medical examination, 17 injuries were found on the body of the revi- sionist. Details disclosed in the complaint explaining the delay in filing it is not necessary to be reproduced here in verbatim which can be verified from the original complaint filed by the revisionist. Here, in the present case, this Court is called upon to ; examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate within the meaning of Sec. 397 (1), Cr.P.C. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. G.L. Khatri at length as well as learned P.P. Irrespective of sufficient service on respondents No.2 to 20, neither any one of them is present nor they have engaged any counsel to do `Pairvi on their behalf. (5). A close scrutiny of the order impugned passed by the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Sujangarh reveals that after meticulous examination of the evidence produced by the complainant-revisionist he arrived at a conclusion that the complainant- revisionist received 17 injuries only although the beating was given by 19 accused-persons and that too at two places. (5). A close scrutiny of the order impugned passed by the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Sujangarh reveals that after meticulous examination of the evidence produced by the complainant-revisionist he arrived at a conclusion that the complainant- revisionist received 17 injuries only although the beating was given by 19 accused-persons and that too at two places. He also came to the conclusion that injury report prepared by Dr. Madhusudan in police custody does not disclose any grievous injury received by the complainant-revisionist, therefore, according to him, the injury report prepared by Dr. Madhusudan does not lend support to the complainants case. The learned Magistrate also arrived at a conclusion that there is no proper explanation of delay in filing the complaint. To my mind, the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the prosecution witnesses do not stat e as to who caused which injury to the complainant. The aforesaid approach of the learned Magistrate is absolutely erroneous and illegal, inasmuch as, for taking cognizance, a prima facie case is to be established and meticulous examination about the probability or improbability of the involvement of an accused does not arise at the stage of taking cognizance. The learned Magistrate was not justified to hold that the complainant has not given proper explanation of delay in filing the complaint. (6). I am of the opinion, that the learned Magistrate committed a serious error in arriving at the conclusion that as the injury report prepared by Dr. Madhusudan discloses only 17 injuries, out of them none is grievous, so the injury report does not support the complainants case. Learned Magistrate has also committed a serious error in meticulously examining the statements of the prosecution witnesses produced by the complainant coupled with the injury report prepared by Dr. Madhusudan. Learned Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance, was not called upon to decide the truthfulness of the prosecution story or probability or improbability about the innocence of the accused but he was under legal obligation to examine the existence of a prima facie case against the accused-persons. (7). It is well to remember that the learned Magistrates are under legal obligation to deal carefully with all complaints made to them against any body be- cause credibility and stability of the Government depends upon confidence of citizens in law enforcing machinery. (7). It is well to remember that the learned Magistrates are under legal obligation to deal carefully with all complaints made to them against any body be- cause credibility and stability of the Government depends upon confidence of citizens in law enforcing machinery. The citizens of State of Rajasthan should not be given a chance to apprehend that against the police personnel they cannot get any redress in a court of law. (8). It is also one of the duties of the courts of law to check the police atrocities and inhuman treatment meted out to a person in police custody or otherwise. Police personnel cannot be allowed to claim themselves to be above the rule of law, therefore, if any complaint is made against the police personnel, they should be called upon to face the trial as common man in accordance with law and prove their innocence as envisaged under Code of Criminal Procedure at an appropriate stage. (9). It is true that services of the police force are valuable for all citizens and if allegations about police atrocities are made then courts of law after taking cognizance in accordance with law against them should give an opportunity to such police personnel to show that they are not defacing the name of the force which they belong. In fact, it would be a sad day if public in general and a victim of police atrocities in particular starts thinking to the effect that police force does not exist for protection of the society. It is to be imbibed by all that the police force has done yeoman service of people in the past and vast majority of them are also doing yeoman service to the society today at the risk of their life. To tarnish the entire police force for the mis-deeds of a few is to plant the kiss of Judas on the vast majority of upright police force. (10). In the present case, as I propose to remit the case to the learned Magistrate to re-consider the evidence on record before taking cognizance against the accused-persons on merits on the principle stated in the preceding paragraphs, hence, it would not be proper to make analytical discussion of evidence on record which may cast pre-mature reflection about merit of the case. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the order impugned dated 8.9.92 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh is hereby set aside and revision petition is allowed with a direction to the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh to re-consider and re-examine the material available on record in the light of the observations made in the body of the order and pass fresh suitable order in accordance with law.