Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1913 (RAJ)

Janku Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2013-10-31

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-complainant Smt. Janku Devi challenging the judgment dated 10.4.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta, Distt. Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 28/2010, whereby, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent No. 2 Smt. Goura Devi from the offences under Sections 341, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant herein submitted a report before the S.H.O., Police Station, Makrana. It was alleged in the report that the appellant had gone to the village well for filling water in the morning on 21.6.2009. At that time, the respondent No. 2 Smt. Goura Devi came there and started abusing her on the ground of her caste. Her husband also came there and they threw away earthen pot the appellant, due to which, the pot was broken. Both of them started quarreling with the appellant and threw her on the ground. The appellant raised hue and cry, on which, the villagers Rameshwar Singh, Bankat Lal Sharma, Bheru Singh and Prabhu Ram came and saved her. It was alleged in the report that the appellant was threatened by the respondent No. 2 Smt. Goura Devi that if she returned to the village well for taking water, she would be killed. 4. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 185/2009 was registered at the Police Station Makrana and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the respondent No. 2 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases in the Court concerned. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the respondent No. 2 for the afore said offences. The respondent No. 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case. The accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and submitted that her husband Roop Dass was a priest in the village temple and that a false case has been filed for ousting him from the village temple. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case. The accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and submitted that her husband Roop Dass was a priest in the village temple and that a false case has been filed for ousting him from the village temple. The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to observe in the impugned judgment that the complainant could not lead any clinching or satisfactory evidence to substantiate her case. It was observed by the learned trial Judge that the complainant herself stated that her pot broke because of the scuffle between her and the respondent No. 2. It was also observed that the complainant admitted that Rameshwar Singh, Bankat Lal Sharma, Bheru Singh and Prabhu Ram came to the scene of occurrence after the quarrel was over. The first informant also admitted that when the incident took place nobody was present on the spot except herself and Smt. Goura Devi, the respondent No. 2. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was justified in holding that the respondent No. 2 Smt. Goura Devi did not intentionally hurled abuses to the complainant with the intention of insulting her. Thus, this Court feels that there is no justification for admitting this appeal filed by the complainant under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent No. 2.Resultantly, the appeal being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******