Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 882 (RAJ)

Govind Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant Govind Singh has approached this Court being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.7.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 32/1993 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and giving him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- and the surety of the like amount for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of two years. 2. Shri Charan, learned Counsel representing the appellant urged that the F.I.R. was filed after a significant delay of more than 3 days. Two persons namely the appellant herein and Budh Singh allegedly, abused and insulted the complainant on the ground of his caste. The police, did not find the case proved against Budh Singh and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed only against the appellant herein. There is a significant contradiction in the allegations as set out in the written report (Ex.P-1.) submitted by Achla Ram and his sworn testimony. So far as the offences under the Penal Code are concerned, the complainant has already executed a compromise with the complainant. Therefore, he urged that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is per se unjustified and the appeal deserves to be accepted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's Counsel. He contended that the complainant has given sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the report itself. Respectable persons of the village, restrained him from filing the report under the pretext that they would penalise the accused. However, no such action was taken. Thus, the complainant was held back and could not file the report promptly. He further urged that the so-called contradictions pointed out by the appellant's Counsel in the prosecution evidence are insignificant and trivial and merely because of such minor contradictions, trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted or discarded. However, on the issue that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused so far as the offence under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor did not controvert the said submission. 4. However, on the issue that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused so far as the offence under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor did not controvert the said submission. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 5. The alleged incident is of 20.4.1993. The typed first information report (Ex.P-1) was submitted by Achla Ram, the complainant before the Dy. S.P., Balotra on 23.4.1993. The complainant alleged in the F.I.R. that he was going to his home on 20.4.1993, when the accused and Budh Singh, accosted him. They were having hockey sticks in their hands. Both insulted and abused him on the ground of his caste saying that how he had dared to sit with them on the same bench at the railway station. Thereafter, the appellant Govind Singh inflicted a blow on the hand of the complainant and Budh Singh gave a blow on his shoulder. Kalu Ram and Badar intervened and saved the complainant. In his sworn testimony, the first informant Achla Ram alleged that both the accused, insulted and abused him on the ground of his caste at the railway station when he sat near them on a Bench. Thus, there is a significant contradiction in the version of the complainant as set out in the belated typed F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) and in his sworn testimony as regards the place where the accused hurled caste based abuses and insulted him. The witness Badarji, who allegedly intervened and saved the complainant from the accused, did not support the prosecution story. The witness Kalu Ram (PW-2), did not state that he saw the accused insulting the complainant on the ground of his caste. 6. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation of the complainant that he was insulted by the accused appellant on the ground of his caste while he was proceeding towards his home is unbelievable. Similar allegations were levelled against Budh Singh as well as the appellant herein. Budh Singh was not charge-sheeted in the matter and instead, was examined as a witness by the Investigating Officer. 7. Similar allegations were levelled against Budh Singh as well as the appellant herein. Budh Singh was not charge-sheeted in the matter and instead, was examined as a witness by the Investigating Officer. 7. As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant was not based on a proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The evidence of the first informant Achla Ram is not at all reliable and believable and thus, the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act by the judgment dated 12.7.1994 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. Record be sent back forthwith.