Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 871 (RAJ)

Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-14

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sita Ram under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 09.06.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) and Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court") in Criminal Case No. 15/1993 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused- appellant for offences under Sections 447, 427 and 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:- Under Section 447 IPC Three months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- in default thereof to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 427 IPC Six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- of default thereof to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 323 IPC Six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- in default thereof to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act : Six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- in default thereof to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. All the above sentences were also ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint (Ex.-P1) was lodged by one Madan Lal who was brother of the petitioner stating therein that he went to a field at Village Malasar belonging to Khasra No. 80/8 of khatedari land. During this year, one Jugta Ram used to plough this land for the crop of Gawar and Till. He kept one Manohar Lal for this purpose who worked there whole day and in night he went to Narain Singh's house. It is alleged that on 15.08.1992 at about 7.00 PM, Manohar Lal came to the complainant and said that on the same day in the morning at about 10.00-10.30 AM when he was in the field and collecting cows then his brother Sita Ram came in a Tractor along with three Sardars and one other person whose name he did not knew. All five persons started destroying crop with the tractor. On this Manohar Lal opposed for doing so. Then all five persons came to Manohar Lal and accused Sita Ram abused and insulted Manohar Lal and also slapped him. Sardars who also accompanied with accused Sita Ram also threatened Manohar Lal with dire consequence. All five persons started destroying crop with the tractor. On this Manohar Lal opposed for doing so. Then all five persons came to Manohar Lal and accused Sita Ram abused and insulted Manohar Lal and also slapped him. Sardars who also accompanied with accused Sita Ram also threatened Manohar Lal with dire consequence. They all threw out Manohar Lal from the field and destroyed the crop. Manohar Lal went to Jaimalsar and informed this incident to Narain Singh. They went to the spot and saw that the crop which was destroyed by the accused persons. On the above said report, an FIR (Ex-P2) for the offences under Sections 447, 147, 427 and 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered 3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences was filed against the accused-appellant The trial of the case was conducted by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) and Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner who after hearing framed charges against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 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 7 witnesses and exhibited documents as Ex.-P1 to Ex.P4. Thereafter appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him. In his defence accused got examined DW-1 Amolakram. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 323 IPC and 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. 4. 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 23.06.1994. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, perused the judgment impugned and material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR (Ex.-P2) of the present case has been registered after two days of the incident and the same has been registered at delayed stage. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that there is dispute between both the brothers regarding one house and this false report has been lodged by Madan Lal against his real brother and all the allegations made in the FIR have been made falsely. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that there is dispute between both the brothers regarding one house and this false report has been lodged by Madan Lal against his real brother and all the allegations made in the FIR have been made falsely. He submitted that the incident took place on 15.08.1992 at 10.00-10.30 AM and on the same day, according to FIR, Manohar Lal who is an eye witness narrated the incident to Madan Lal but Madan Lal the complainant of this case lodged the FIR in P.S. on 17.08.1992 after two days. No proper explanation of this delay was given and the learned trial court ignored this fact that no adverse offence should be drawn. This shows that the FIR was lodged after due consultation and the same has been lodged falsely. He further argued that the driver of the tractor who drove the tractor has not been produced by the prosecution and a more silent feature is that this land whether it belongs to the petitioner or complainant. The Revenue Patwari has also not been produced along with record. In the Revenue suit the court has order to maintain status quo in the stay proceedings and now the petitioner is ploughing the land and he has cultivated the field belonging to the complainant and a stay order was passed in favour of the petitioner. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned trial court while passing the judgment of conviction. He further argued that the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989 is not made out because as per Section 3(i)(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 field, therefore, the version of the complainant creates serious doubt on the happening of the incident at all and therefore, no offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out. 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. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He 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. 8. 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. 9. Admittedly, the incident is alleged to have happened on 15.08.92, whereas the complainant had lodged the FIR on 17.08.92. 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 injured PW-2 Manohar Lal and the witness PW-3 Narain Ram who is said to have seen the incident, none of them lodged the FIR soon after the incident with the nearest police station. It is pertinent to note that in order to constitute the accusation of an offence under Section 3(i)(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. If it is found that accused was annoyed with the complainant due to the land dispute, 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(i)(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 447, 427 and 323 IPC is concerned, on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has established and proved the said offence against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction for offence under Section is 447, 427 and 323 IPC liable to be upheld. 10. So far as the prosecution under Section 447, 427 and 323 IPC is concerned, on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has established and proved the said offence against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction for offence under Section is 447, 427 and 323 IPC liable to be upheld. 10. In view of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed with modification of the impugned judgment dated 09.06.1994 to the extent that while upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 447, 427 and 323 IPC, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail while enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 250/- 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 Atrocities) 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.