Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 862 (RAJ)

Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-13

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ram Kumar under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 15.03.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Churu (for short “the trial court”) in Criminal Case No. 14/1992 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced the accused-appellant as under: Under Section 323 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Under Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act : Six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Both the sentences were also ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint (Ex.-P4) was lodged by one Hukma Ram Meghwal who was a teacher in a private school. The allegations against the appellant-accused are that on 12.08.1991 at about 9.30 AM, the appellant-accused Ram Kumar who was also a teacher, came to school. He was under the influence of liquor. He asked for a card of a student namely Vijendra Singh of Class-VIII. On this the complainant-informant replied that he does not have any record. On this accused-appellant got angry. Thereafter the accused went away. On the same day at about 8.30 PM when the complainant was in his house then one man came there and asked him to come out. When the complainant went out in the street then Ram Kumar and 3-4 other persons who were already present there, surrounded him. It is alleged that complainant was abused and slapped. Fist blows were also given to him. Accused Ram Kumar gave fist blow on the eye of the complainant Hukma Ram and the complainant also received injuries on his head and back. On his crying, accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, on 14.08.1991 a report regarding the aforesaid incident was lodged by the complainant before the SHO, P.S. Churu. On the above said report, an FIR for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. 4. On his crying, accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, on 14.08.1991 a report regarding the aforesaid incident was lodged by the complainant before the SHO, P.S. Churu. On the above said report, an FIR for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. 4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 323 IPC and 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed against the accused-appellant. The trial of the case was conducted by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Churu who after hearing framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 323 IPC and 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Thereafter appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him. No witness was produced by the appellant-accused in his defence. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 323 IPC and 3 (i)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal before this court which was admitted for hearing on 08.04.1994. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, perused the judgment impugned and material available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR (Ex.-P4) of the present case has been typewritten after three days of the incident. Medical report (Ex.-P7) reveals that there is no evidence of any injuries on the person of the complainant. He further submits that at the time of incident, complainant and injured were working in a private school. He submits that witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile. He therefore argued that prosecution failed to establish the fact that the accused-appellant abused and slapped the complainant. Since, prosecution has failed to establish allegations beyond reasonable doubt, the appeal of the appellant-accused may be allowed and he may be acquitted of the charges. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-accused and he supported the impugned judgment. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced at bar. 10. Since, prosecution has failed to establish allegations beyond reasonable doubt, the appeal of the appellant-accused may be allowed and he may be acquitted of the charges. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-accused and he supported the impugned judgment. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced at bar. 10. In this matter, it is not in dispute that the complainant Hukma Ram Meghwal and the accused were serving in the same school. In the report, the complainant alleged that Ram Kumar was removed from the post by the administration of Abhilasha School. As per statement of the complainant, the incident took place due to rivalry between the accused-appellant and the complainant. 11. Dr. Umed Singh (PW-5) stated in his statement that he medically examined Hukma Ram and medical report (Ex. P7) was prepared by him. As per medical report (Ex.-P7) no injury was found on the body of injured Hukma Ram. It is pertinent to mention that in order to constitute accusation for the offence under Section 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, there must be allegation that the accused has/have intentionally insulted the complainant. From perusal of the FIR, it is not abundantly clear that there is allegation of intentional insult of the complainant in the public. The complainant has alleged that the accused along with 3-4 other persons gave beatings but as per medical report no evidence of injuries were found. 12. In view of the above, prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15.03.1994, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Churu is set aside. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.