Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1377 (RAJ)

Chandra Kanta v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-09

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-The instant criminal appeal under Section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short "the Act" hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 14.09.2004 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Session Case No. 111/03 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 341 and 323, IPC. However, acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST Act hereinafter) and instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment of imprisonment the appellant was granted benefit of Section 4 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, the accused appellant has filed the instant criminal appeal. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and public prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned Judgment and order as also the record of the trial Court. 3. On an FIR Exhibit P-2 lodged by PW. 2 Manju before Police Station Desuri, a crime report was registered for the offences under Sections 341 and 323, IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of SC/ST Act. After usual investigation, the police filed challan. A cross case was also lodged by the appellant Chandra Kanta against complainant Manju and others. Before the trial Court, the prosecution produced PW. 1 Hariram, PW. 2 Manju, PW. 3 Kishore, PW. 4 Annarajsingh, PW. 5 Banshilal, PW. 6 Mishrilal, PW. 7 Dr. A.K. Morya and PW. 8 Manish Agarwal, the Investigating Officer. The appellant made statement under Section 313 CrPC and denied the occurrence and also stated that the appellant herself has lodged a cross case against Mishrilal and others arising out of same occurrence. The appellant appeared DW. 1 as defence witness. The appellant in her statement stated that one Mishrilal was outraging her modesty, at that time, complainant PW. 2 Manju, daughter of Mishrilal, came there and caused injuries to her, for which a cross case Exhibit D-5 was lodged by her. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the injury report, Doctor who examined injured Manju has shown date of occurrence as 25.03.2003 whereas the occurrence is said to have taken place on 25.04.2003 and FIR is also dated 25.04.2003. 5. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the injury report, Doctor who examined injured Manju has shown date of occurrence as 25.03.2003 whereas the occurrence is said to have taken place on 25.04.2003 and FIR is also dated 25.04.2003. 5. On perusal of the record and statement of witnesses, it is clear that as a matter of fact, the occurrence took place on 25.04.2003 and on Tahrir issued by police dated 25.04.2003, injured Manju as well as appellant in cross case were examined. Injured Manju in fact was examined on 25.04.2003 which is evident from the endorsement on the injury report that on a Tehrir received from police on 25.04.2003, the Doctor examined the injured. Even according to PW. 7 Dr. A.K. Morya, he examined injured Manju on 25.04.2003 on receipt of the Tehrir dated 25.04.2003. Thus, it appears that due to human error, the date on the injury report has been shown as 25.03.2003 whereas according to statement of doctor and surrounding circumstances, injured Manju was examined on 25.04.2003. Even as per the case set up by the appellant and the injury report in the cross case show that she was examined on 26.04.2003 and the injuries suffered by the appellant was between 12-18 hours, that co-relate with the occurrence on 25.04.2003. In the circumstances, therefore, the trial Court on a proper appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act. However, convicted the appellant under Sections 341 and 323, IPC and instead of sentencing her at once, she was granted benefit of Section 4 of the Act. In my view, no error can be found in the findings recorded by the trial Court even on re-appreciation of the evidence. The appeal is dismissed accordingly