Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 87 (RAJ)

Mangli v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 112.2004 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Case, Pali (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 135/2004, by which the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, IPC and Section 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, "the Act" hereinafter). 2. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that she kidnapped and committed the murder of one Naresh Meghwal, aged about 10 years, who was a member of Scheduled Caste. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument and challenged the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for the offence under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Act and contended that no offence under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Act is prima facie made out against the petitioner and as such the order framing charge under this Section is bad in the eye of law. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed this contention and stressed that the trial Court is justified in framing the charge under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Act apart from the charges under Sections 364 and 302, IPC. 5. Earlier also, the accused-petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 670/2004 challenging the order dated 17.09.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. That revision petition stood disposed of vide order dated 110.2004 with the liberty to the accused-petitioner to raise such objection at the time of framing the charge by the trial Court. Rejecting such objection, the trial Court, vide impugned order, framed the charges for the aforesaid offences against the accused-petitioner. 6. I have carefully gone through the order impugned. While rejecting the objection raised on behalf of the accused-petitioner, the learned trial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons discussing the law on the point. In the cases where the offences are tried under the Act, it is not necessary to allege that the offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In the cases where the offences are tried under the Act, it is not necessary to allege that the offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Whether the accused has committed the offence on that ground or not, has to be ascertained from the material gather during the trial and it is not possible to say at the stage from the complaint itself that the petitioner has not committed the offence on the ground that the victim was a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Mere non-mentioning of such fact in the charge-sheet itself is no ground for discharging the accused-petitioner from the offence under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Act, particularly when it is an admitted fact on record that the deceased was a member of scheduled caste, being Meghwal by caste, and the accused-petitioner is Chaudhary (Jat) by caste. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality, error or perversity in the order impugned, which may require interference in the revisional jurisdiction when the matter is at the trial stage. 7. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed of .