Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 833 (RAJ)

Najuram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 57/2007 whereby the respondents have been discharged of the offences under Sections 342 and 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant submitted a complaint on 28.1.1999 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh for the aforesaid offences with the allegations that on 26.1.2009 at about 8 to 8:30 PM, the complainant was sitting in the house of one Vinit Kumar Sharma located on Barawarda road. At that time, Narayan Gujar Roop Chand Tak and Suresh Tak were also sitting with him. It was stated in the complaint that the respondents who are police officials entered into the house of Vinit Kumar and started hurling caste based abuses to the complainant and exhorted that the complainant would be taken to the Police Station and beaten up. It s alleged that the complainant was dragged out from the house and his companions were also taken to the Police Station after boarding them into the police jeep. It was further stated that the accused persons assaulted the complainant by slaps while being taken to the Police Station and after being lodged at the Police Station, the complainant as well as his companions were all assaulted by the accused persons while in custody. It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant and his companions were kept at the Police Station in the night and at about 3-3:30 PM in the afternoon, they were presented before the SDM after concocting a case of breach of peace. It was further submitted that the assault was made upon the complainant because he was supporting the Congress party whereas accused Narwar Singh had asked him to canvass in the elections on behalf of the opposite party. On this complaint, the proceedings under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the learned Magistrate vide order impugned took cognizance against the respondents No. 2 to 4 for the offences stated above and the case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Pratapgarh. On this complaint, the proceedings under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the learned Magistrate vide order impugned took cognizance against the respondents No. 2 to 4 for the offences stated above and the case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Pratapgarh. The learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments on charge, came to the conclusion that the respondents were the police officers posted at the Police Station Dhamotar at the relevant time. An information was received at P.S. Dhamotar on 26.1.1999 regarding the activities of breach of peace committed at Hanuman Chauraha, Barawarda road. The S.H.O. Narvar Singh and his companions reached the scene of occurrence and arrested the complainant and his companions and produced them before the S.D.M., Pratapgarh. These persons were released on bail on the next day. The learned trial Judge held that since the complainant and his companions were arrested by the police persons in the discharge of their official duties in relation to the duties of maintenance of law and order, the requirement of mandatory sanction being procured before prosecuting such police officers was not followed. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge proceeded to discharge the respondents from the aforesaid offences. The said order has been assailed in the instant revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner complainant argued that the complainant and his companions were assaulted by the police officers and were caused injuries. It is submitted that the discharge of duty does not include within its ambit any assault and causing of injuries to a person. It is submitted that when the complainant and his companions were examined medically on 27.1.1999, number of injuries were found on their person. He thus submits that the allegations of the complainant and his witnesses that they were beaten after keeping them in illegal custody, is fortified from the medical evidence. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order deserves to he quashed. 5. Learned PP and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that the complainant and his companions were found committing the breach of peace at a public place and the S.H.O. and other police officials (respondents No. 2 to 4) took resort to preventive measures by arresting the complainant and his companions and produced them before the Executive Magistrate. 5. Learned PP and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that the complainant and his companions were found committing the breach of peace at a public place and the S.H.O. and other police officials (respondents No. 2 to 4) took resort to preventive measures by arresting the complainant and his companions and produced them before the Executive Magistrate. At the time, when the complainant and his companions and were so produced before the S.D.M, they did not raise by grievance regarding having been assaulted by the police officers. Counsel for the complainant further submitted that the medical examination of the complainant and his companions was conducted on 27.1.1999 from 12:30 AM to 1:25 AM immediately after arrest and before being produced before the S.D.M. and in the medical examination, they were found to be under the influence of intoxication and no injuries were found on their persons. The medical reports are part of the record of the complaint filed before the S.D.M. and have been placed on the record of the learned trial Court as well. He further submitted that subsequently, the complainant had himself and his companion Roop Chand examined medically on his own request and the medical examination conducted at 4:30 - 4:50 PM on 27.1.2009 has revealed that there are in all five bruises on the bodies of these two persons. It is submitted that before being produced before the Magistrate, when the medical examination of these persons was done, no injuries were found and resultantly if the subsequent medical examination which has been conducted after release of these persons on bail, has been conducted and some injuries have been observed, then obviously, these injuries cannot be linked to any incident of assault taken place before the production of these persons before the Magistrate. Thus, it is submitted that the order of the learned Special Judge does not call for any interference. 6. After having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after having gone through the material available on record, it is apparent that when the complainant and his companions were produced before the Magistrate in the complaint for breach of peace, they did not make any objection regarding them having been assaulted or wrongfully confined by the police officers. 6. After having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after having gone through the material available on record, it is apparent that when the complainant and his companions were produced before the Magistrate in the complaint for breach of peace, they did not make any objection regarding them having been assaulted or wrongfully confined by the police officers. The medical examination conducted before production before the S.D.M. reveals no injuries on their persons The act of the police officers in arresting the complainant and his companions was definitely an act being performed by them in the discharge of their official duties for the purpose of maintenance of law and order situation. Thus, by strength of the notification of the year 1974, these police officers definitely have the umbrella of the protection of the requirement of sanction before their prosecution. Concededly, no sanction has been obtained in this case before prosecuting the respondents. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order discharging the respondents cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified by any stretch of imagination. 7. The upshot of the above discussion, is that the instant revision petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******