Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 865 (RAJ)

Lichhu Ram @ Laxman Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-13

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This criminal appal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.03.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Churu (for short "the trial court") in Criminal Case No. 15/92 whereby, he convicted the appellant under Section 341, 323 IPC, Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act and sentenced him as under :- Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court U/s 341 IPC To undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/- in default of fine to further undergone 15 days rigorous imprisonment U/s 323 IPC To undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/- in default of fine to further undergone 15 days rigorous imprisonment. US/3(i)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act To undergo six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 22.05.1992 by complainant Asu Ram stating therein that on 21.05.1992 famine camp was going on in village Duliasar. It is stated that he went along with Patwari Shyam Sunder to police station and after seeing off patwari, when he returned towards his house, appellant who was standing near the well stopped him and gave blows on left ribs and abused him. It is alleged that the complainant shouted and people came and rescued him. 3. Upon the said information, a case was registered against the appellant for offence under Section 341, 323 and 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act. Thereafter, investigation took place and a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and case was transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Churu for trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and claimed trial. In defence, one witness Pema Ram was examined by the appellant. 5. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. In defence, one witness Pema Ram was examined by the appellant. 5. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR has been filed by the complainant with delay because if any such incident had happened on 22.05.92, then the police must have arrived at the place of occurrence and must have recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the site plan, whereas, no such thing is on record and therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that offence under Section 3(x) of the Act of 1989 is not made out because as per Section 3(x), there must be abusing in open public but as per evidence on record, when the alleged occurrence took place, no person was standing near the well, therefore, the version of the complainant creates serious doubt on the happening of the incident at all and therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out. Moroever the witness Koja Ram examined as PW/7 in the trial court who is alleged to have come first upon shouting of complainant, did not support the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. It is further submitted that for the offence under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries, even if the conviction is maintained, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused appellant in jail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, prayed for their acquittal of the aforesaid offences. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is no occasion either to interfere with the finding and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Court below nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is no occasion either to interfere with the finding and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Court below nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. I have considered the arguments raised on behalf of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by both the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. 10. Admittedly, the incident is alleged to have happened on 21.05.92, whereas the complainant had lodged the FIR on 22.05.92. The complainant was well within his right and could have filed the FIR immediately after the incident at the police station and this creates a reasonable suspicion that report was lodged as an afterthought. Besides, the witness PW/7 Koja Ram who is said to have arrived first on hearing the shouts, did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile and other persons who allegedly came to the complainant upon hearing the shouts, none of them lodged the FIR soon after the incident with the nearest police station. Further, it appears that the reason behind the incident was that the accused was under impression that in the mutation proceedings regarding the agricultural land, complainant/injured gave wrong information to the Patwari regarding possession of agricultural land and particulars of the LRs for which mutation proceedings were pending. It is pertinent to note that in order to constitute the accusation of an offence under Section 3(1)(x), there must be an allegation that the accused has/have intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant in a place which was within public view. The complainant in his statement admits that he went to see off Patwari at Railway station and while returning when he reached near well, the appellant gave him beatings. Thus, it is found that accused was annoyed with the complainant due to the land dispute and pending mutation proceedings. Therefore, the injury in question was caused by accused appellant not on account of appellant belonging to higher caste and complainant belonging to lower caste and thus, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 does not appear to have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Therefore, the injury in question was caused by accused appellant not on account of appellant belonging to higher caste and complainant belonging to lower caste and thus, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 does not appear to have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. So far as the prosecution under Section 323 & 341 IPC is concerned, on the basis of statement of prosecution witnesses supported by injury report Ex.P/1, the prosecution has established and proved the said offence against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction for offence under Section 323 & 341 IPC is liable to be upheld. 11. In view of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed with modification of the impugned judgment dated 15.03.1994 to the extent that while upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 323 & 341 IPC, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail while enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 200/- each to Rs. 1500/- each inclusive of amount already paid. The accused appellant is acquitted from the offence recorded under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. The amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellant in the trial court within a period of 90 days from today and learned trial court shall disburse the same to the complainant by issuing notice to the complainant. The appellant is on bail. He need no surrender before the trial court. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the court below forthwith.