Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1418 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shivdan, son of Danudan

2016-09-30

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. This criminal leave to appeal under Section 378 (i) & (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is preferred by the appellant-State of Rajasthan aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.10.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner (for short "the trial court" hereinafter) whereby, the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Section 504 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC/ST Act"). 2. The brief facts of the case are that a written complaint (Ex.P-1) was submitted by the complainant-Uttamaram on 4.5.10 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner stating that on 27.4.2010, he and one Shivdan were filling their water container from the water tank in Meghwals' Mohalla. While, standing by the side of Shivdan, the complainant's hand touched the water container of Shivdan. The accused Shivdan started abusing the complainant in the name of caste and assaulted him stating that he has spoiled his water container. In the meanwhile, the complainant's brother Om Prakash, Roopa Ram, Ishudan, Sumerdan and Kesuram came and rescued him. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a first information report being No.27/2010 was registered at Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, from where the case was committed to the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Bikaner. 4. The trial court framed the charges against the accused respondent for offences under Section 504 IPC and 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The accused-respondent denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution produced and examined as many as seven witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-7 before the trial court. The statement of the accused-respondent were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he denied his involvement in the commission of the offence and alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused respondent did not produce any evidence in his defence. 6. The statement of the accused-respondent were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he denied his involvement in the commission of the offence and alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused respondent did not produce any evidence in his defence. 6. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the finding that on the basis of the evidence adduced, charges are not proved and accordingly, acquitted the accused person of the offences charged. Hence, this leave to appeal. 7. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned trial court fell in error in acquitting the accused-respondent of the offences charged inasmuch there is ample evidence available on record which establishes the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor drawing the attention of the court to the statements of PW 2-Isudan, PW 3-Om Prakash, urged that from their deposition, it stands sufficiently proved that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant, a member of Scheduled Caste, at the place within the public view and thus, the trial court without appreciating the evidence on record objectively, has erred in acquitting the accused. 8. I have heard learned public prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned judgment as also the record of the court below. 9. It is to be noticed that in the instant case, the complainant PW-1, in his examination in chief, stated that the accused Shivdan abused him in the name of the caste and thereafter used abusive and filthy language. It is further deposed by him that upon raising noise, Om Prakash, Ishudan, Sumerdan, Ruparam and Keshudan came there and rescued him and at that time also, the accused abused him in the name of caste. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR (Ex.P/1), there was no allegation that the accused abused the complainant in the name of the caste in presence of Om Prakash, Ishudan, Sumerdan, Ruparam and Keshudan. It has come on record that Om Prakash, who has deposed that the accused abused the complainant in the name of caste is real brother of the complainant. PW-2 Ishudan in his testimony stated that he used to sit on the shop of the complainant's brother Om Prakash. Thus, apparently, all the three witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. PW-2 Ishudan in his testimony stated that he used to sit on the shop of the complainant's brother Om Prakash. Thus, apparently, all the three witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. No other witness was produced on behalf of the prosecution despite the fact that independent witnesses namely Sumerdan, Ruparam and Keshudan, were also alleged to be present on the spot. 10. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the statements of witnesses reveal that there exists material contradictions regarding the incident alleged to have occurred. In the considered opinion of this court, after examination of the evidence on record in its entirety and objectivity, the finding arrived at by the trial court that the complainant and other witnesses have attempted to improve their statements so as to show that the accused abused the complainant in the name of the caste in presence of others, cannot be faulted with. In absence of any cogent evidence showing that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant, a member of Scheduled Caste at the place within the public view, the finding arrived at by the court below that the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court. 11. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The incident took place on 27.4.10 and the report in this regard was submitted by the complainant on 4.5.10 i.e. after a lapse of about 7 days of the incident. The delay in lodging the FIR is not explained by the prosecution. 12. In view of the discussion above, no case for granting the leave to appeal is made out. 13. The criminal leave to appeal is therefore, rejected. Leave to appeal dismissed.