Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2249 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Rameshwar @ Badlu

2007-11-27

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This criminal appeal by the State of Rajasthan arises out of the judgment and order dated 15th December, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem-ka-thana, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent of the offences charged with. 2. On 17.11.86 at about 7-8 AM, Mst. Dilkori had gone to hand pump to fetch water, where accused respondent Rameshwar told her that he will not permit her to fetch water as she being a 'Chamar' (a member of Scheduled Caste). On being replied that hand-pump is a Government property, the accused got annoyed and broke her half filled earthen water pot and pushed her. On hearing the noise, her husband, Matadeen came there and requested the accused respondent with folded hands to permit her to fetch water. Thereupon the accused told that he will not permit 'Chamars' and 'Dhedh' and inflicted a Kulhari blow on the head of her husband. Accused also inflicted blows at his chest and hand using back side of Kulhari. When she tried to intervene, the accused gave fist blow, which resulted in breaking her tooth. 'Hearing noise, Phool Chand, Madu Ram and Sardara Chamar came there and intervened. Matadeen became unconscious. He was taken to hospital and was hospitalized. Upon this report, the police registered a case for offence under Sections 324 and 323 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and proceeded with investigation. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused. 3. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused respondent for offence under Sections 324, 325 and 323 IPC and Section 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 9 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his explanation, the accused stated that he has been falsely involved in the instant case because of political rivalary. He also examined two witnesses, namely, Dhoona and Badami in his defence. 5. At the conclusion of trial and on hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, while extending benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused respondent. 5. At the conclusion of trial and on hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, while extending benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused respondent. Hence the present appeal by the State of Rajasthan. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondent and gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial court has not relied upon the testimony of PW1 Madu Ram, PW2 Sardarilal and PW3 Phool Chand on the ground that these 3 persons are highly interested witnesses. All the three witnesses belong to the same caste, to which the complainant and injured Matadeen belong and that being so, these witnesses have favoured them. In the opinion of the trial court, these three witnesses have made improvements in their statements to a large extent and that they cannot be termed to be the eye witnesses of the incident as has been admitted by them in their cross examination. I have also scanned the evidence and in my considered view, the learned, trial court has appreciated the evidence in true perspective and has rightly come to the above finding. 8. The hand-pump was installed a year prior to the alleged incident. It was for the first time that, on the day of incident, complainant Mst. Dilkori (PW1) had gone to fetch water from the hand pump. According to her, she was alone at the hand pump and the accused had broken her earthen water pot before her husband reached the spot. She admitted in her cross examination that some 'Dhankas' and 'Chamars' used to fetch water from the said hand pump. Similarly, her husband PW7 Matadeen has given similar statement. According to him, the family members of 'Dhanka' and 'Chamar' communities used to fetch water from the hand-pump. According to these two witnesses, the alleged incident lasted for 2-3 hours and during this period none came there to fetch water. That apart, there are material contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses. According to him, the family members of 'Dhanka' and 'Chamar' communities used to fetch water from the hand-pump. According to these two witnesses, the alleged incident lasted for 2-3 hours and during this period none came there to fetch water. That apart, there are material contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses. From the evidence of these two witnesses it can well be said that accused respondent had no objection against fetching water from the hand pump in question by the persons belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribes. 9. The statements of PW 1 Madu Ram, PW2 Sardara and PW3 Phool Chand, who belong to the same community to which the complainant and her husband belong clearly reveal that they reached the place of incident on hearing the noise. According to PW1 Madu Ram, he was at his home. He noticed injuries on the persons of Dilkori and Matadeen, meaning thereby that he reached the spot after the alleged incident. He categorically stated that persons belonging to all communities used to fetch water from the said hand pump for last two years and that Sarpanch (accused respondent) never prevented any body from doing so. According to him, Harijans used to fetch water from the said hand pump. He simple stated that when he reached the spot, exchange of abuses was going on between the parties and that none was prevented from fetching water. It is thus clear that this witness does not state about untouchability. PW2 Sardara stated that he reached the spot on hearing the noise. This witness has contradicted the statement of PW7 Matadeen who had reached the spot after the accused had broken the earthen water pot of PW6 Dilkori. The statement of Complainant Dilkori is that Sardara reached the spot after her husband and by the time this witness reached the spot, Matadeen had become unconscious. It is thus evident that PW2 Sandara reached the spot after the alleged incident had already taken place. Similar is the statement of PW3 Phool Chand. The trial court has critically analysed the evidence of above named eye witnesses and has rightly rejected their testimony for the reasons stated hereinabove. 10. The accused in his defence has examined DW1 Dhoona and DW2 Badami. Both these defence witnesses have stated that exchange of abuses was going on between Mst. Dilokri and the accused respondent. The dispute was with regard to children. 10. The accused in his defence has examined DW1 Dhoona and DW2 Badami. Both these defence witnesses have stated that exchange of abuses was going on between Mst. Dilokri and the accused respondent. The dispute was with regard to children. Accused was telling the complainant not to abuse. The defence witnesses claim themselves to be present at the site and they had intervened. It is pertinent to note that accused respondent had disclosed the names of these two witnesses even at the time of framing of charges. The prosecution has not been able to rebut the defence taken by the accused respondent. Further, the accused respondent being a Sarpanch of the village, the possibility of there being false allegation of untouchability cannot also be ruled out. 11. So far as injuries on the persons of complainant Dilkori and her husband Matadeen are concerned, the trial court after elaborate discussion of medical evidence has come to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to establish the charges either under Section 324 or Section 325 IPC and in my considered view, rightly so. So far as head injury of Matadeen is concerned, none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that accused respondent inflicted a Kulhari blow on the head of Matadeen. Rest of the injuries on the person of injured Matadeen are bruises and abrasion which can be caused by fall on the earth and the witnesses have also stated that injured fell down. As regards half of the tooth of Mst. Dilkori having been found broken as a result of fist blow given by accused respondent, the learned trial court having relied upon Mody's Medical Jurisprudence has discarded the evidence of Doctor and in my view rightly so because no injury. was found either on lips or on the gums near the broken tooth. 12. In view of above discussions, it can well be said that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt the charges levelled against the accused respondent and the trial court, in view considered has rightly acquitted the accused respondent of the offences charged with. 13. was found either on lips or on the gums near the broken tooth. 12. In view of above discussions, it can well be said that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt the charges levelled against the accused respondent and the trial court, in view considered has rightly acquitted the accused respondent of the offences charged with. 13. It also need be observed that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. It is well settled that even if two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. I find support from the law propounded by the Apex Court in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 10 SCC 136 . 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******