Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1258 (RAJ)

Nanag Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-28

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.- This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is directed against the order dated 212.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, district Churu (for short, "the trial Court") in F.R. No. 120/2004 arising out of FIR No. 46/2004, Police Station, Rajaldesar, whereby the trial Court accepted the negative final report filed by the police and dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner-complainant. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the complainant-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order impugned as well as the record of the trial Court. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that complainant-petitioner lodged an FIR on 18.07.2004 with Police Station, Rajaldesar, inter alia, stating therein that the fields of the complainant-petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 3 are adjoining and there is a common way to village Keetasar passing across their field. The non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 started damaging the fencing of the petitioners agricultural field and cut down the life trees of Rohida. This occurrence was witnesses by the petitioner and his brother Jiwan Ram and they objected the damaging of the fencing and cutting of trees, thereupon the non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 started beating petitioners brother Jiwan Ram and torn his shirt. On noticing the occurrence, Baktawar Singh and Pappu came there and intervened. Non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 started using abusive language for the petitioner and his brother indicating their caste ("DEDHON, TUMHE MAARKAR JAMIN MEN BOOR DENGE"). On this report, the police registered FIR No. 46/2004 for the offences under Section 447, 323/34, IPC, and Section 3 (x) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, after usual investigation, the police filed a negative final report No. 16/2004. A notice was served to the petitioner-complainant and he filed a protest petition. In support of the protest petition, the complaint-petitioner got examined himself on oath as also Bhiva Ram, Sugna Ram, Hukma Ram, Jiwan Ram and Baktawar Singh. The trial Court recorded their statements under Section 200 of the Code. A notice was served to the petitioner-complainant and he filed a protest petition. In support of the protest petition, the complaint-petitioner got examined himself on oath as also Bhiva Ram, Sugna Ram, Hukma Ram, Jiwan Ram and Baktawar Singh. The trial Court recorded their statements under Section 200 of the Code. After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie, there is no evidence that the complainant-petitioner was abused indicating his caste by the non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 at a public place, as also there appeared no intention of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 to trespass the field of the complainant-petitioner and cause injuries. 4. On careful perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the trial Court has over-looked the statements of as many as six witnesses produced by the complainant-petitioner, whose statements were recorded by the trial Court on oath under Section 200 of the Code. The trial Court was persuaded with the fact that the non-petitioners might be making a way by putting certain fencing on the sand; whereas the aforesaid witnesses produced by the complainant-petitioner have clearly stated that in the morning at about 8:00 am, non-petitioners Jasu Ram, Chatra Ram, Hukma Ram and Adu Ram assaulted complainants brother Jiwan Ram and started abusing them indicating their caste. The exact words of abusive language have been uttered by these witnesses in their statements. On noticing that non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 were beating his brother Jiwan Ram, the petitioner-complainant rushed up to the spot. Apart from petitioner-complainant, Bhura Ram, Sugan Ram, Pappu and Baktawar Singh also came on the spot and by intervention, saved Jiwan Ram from the non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 otherwise they would have killed Jiwan Ram. Thereafter also, the non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 abused them indicating their caste. In their statements, these witnesses have clearly stated that the complainant belongs to Meghwal community and as such the members of Schedule Caste. Almost all these witnesses have made the similar statements. 5. There is no reason, at this stage, not to rely on the statements made by the above-noticed six witnesses on oath, who appears to be the independent witnesses. Almost all these witnesses have made the similar statements. 5. There is no reason, at this stage, not to rely on the statements made by the above-noticed six witnesses on oath, who appears to be the independent witnesses. Thus, in my view, the trial Court fell in error in totally ignoring the statements of these six witnesses recorded by the trial Court under Section 200 of the Code and merely on surmises and conjecture, forming the opinion that the accused/non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 had no intention to commit criminal trespass and cause damage to the fencing. The trial Court was more persuaded with the fact that the abusive language used by the non-petitioners was not in a public place. The occurrence, even according to the trial Court, took place near the public way and in the agricultural field belonging to the complainant-petitioner. There are witnesses other than from the community, to which the complainant-petitioner belongs. Thus, it cannot be said at this stage that it has not been viewed by public. In this view of the matter, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 212.2004 passed by the trial Court is set-aside. The trial Court is directed to hold further inquiry and pass appropriate order after reconsideration of the existing material on record. It is made clear that the further inquiry only means reconsideration of the existing evidence. The record of the trial Court be returned forthwith.