Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 886 (RAJ)

Nathu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-17

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 21.04.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the trial court") in Sessions Case No.146/1994 whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under : Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court Nathu Ram and Ram Pratap U/s 457 IPC To undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. Nathur Ram U/s 354 IPC To undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. Ram Pratap U/s 345 IPC R/w 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act 1989 To undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. 2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 17.02.1994 at about 3 PM a written complaint was submitted by one Sohan Lal at Police Station Suratgarh stating that on 16.02.1994 at about 8:30 PM he was working in his field and his wife was alone in the house. At that time, the accused-appellants came in his house and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife. On her shouting for help, Hanuman and Jetha Ram came at the place of occurrence. Thereafter the accused-appellants ran away from there. Thereafter a Panchayat was held for resolution of the matter but the accused-appellants did not come in the Panchayat. On the said written complaint, the Police registered FIR against the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 457, 376/511 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter "the Act of 1989") and commenced investigation. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar for trial. 3. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar for trial. 3. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned trial court framed charges against accused-appellant Nathuram for offences under Sections 450, 376/511 IPC and against the accused-appellant Ram Pratap for offences under Sections 450, 376/511 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter the statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. In defence, one witness was examined. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 21.04.1995 acquitted the accused-appellants for the charges under Sections 450, 376/511 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 which was framed only against the accused-appellant Ram Pratap, but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Nathu Ram for offences under Sections 457 & 354 IPC and the accused-appellant Ram Pratap for offences under Sections 457 & 354 IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. Hence, this criminal appeal. 6. Mr. Avinash Bhati appearing on behalf of Mr. M.K. Garg, for the accused-appellants has submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR as the occurrence took place on 16.02.1994 at about 8:30 PM in the night whereas FIR was lodged on 17.02.1994 at about 3 PM and no explanation has been given for the said delay. It is further submitted that in the FIR and in the statement of Bhagwanti (PW-2) it has come that on shouting Bhagwanti for help, Hanuman and Jetha Ram came at the place of occurrence and only then the accused-appellants ran away. But the prosecution has failed to examine both Hanuman and Jetha Ram in support of its case. Hence there is no independent corroboration of statement of Bhagwanti. It is further submitted that in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellants stated that Bhagwanti was working in the field of Ram Pratap and she demanded Rs. 70/- for daily work but Ram Pratap had given only Rs. 40/- to her. On this enmity, false FIR was lodged against the accused-appellants. It is further submitted that in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellants stated that Bhagwanti was working in the field of Ram Pratap and she demanded Rs. 70/- for daily work but Ram Pratap had given only Rs. 40/- to her. On this enmity, false FIR was lodged against the accused-appellants. It is submitted that the trial court has committed grave error in convicting the accused Ram Pratap for offence under Section 354 IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 as no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the statement of Smt. Bhagwanti and thus the conviction against the accused-appellant Ram Pratap deserves to be set aside. In the circumstances, counsel has prayed for acquittal of the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. The learned PP has submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the findings of the trial court, nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the trial court as also the evidence on record. 9. Smt. Bhagwanti (PW-2) in her statement stated that ml fnu 'kke ds le; va/ksjk gksus ds ckn eqyfteku gkftj vnkyr jkeizrki] uRFkwjke esjs edku esa vk x,A eqyfteku us vkdj dgk fd fdokM+ [kksy eSaus fdokM+ ugaha [kksys rks eqyfteku us edku dk njoktk rksM+ fn;k vkSj edku ds vanj vk x,A eqyfteku us vanj vkdj esjh csbZTtrh djus ds fy;s esjs dks ekaps ij iVd fn;k ftl ij eSaus jksy epk;k vkSj dgk fd cpkvks cpkvksA eqyfteku us NsM+NkM+h dj esjs diM+s QkM+ fn;sA esjs 'kksj djus ij xksVh iRuh tsBkjke vkSj tsBkjke] guqeku Hkh vk x;s FksA ;s gekjs iM+kSlh FksA eqyfteku budks ns[kdj Hkkx x,A Whereas in her cross-examination, Smt. Bhagwanti (PW-2) stated that ?kVuk ls igys eSaus guqeku dks ugha ns[kk FkkA eSa eqyfteku dks tkurh ugha Fkh] vc eSa nksuksa eqyfteku dks tkurh gwWa vkSj buds uke Hkh gwWaA tsBkjke dh ?kjokyh xksVh us eqyfteku ds uke eq>s crk, FksA 10. The statement of Smt. Bhagwanti has not been corroborated by any independent witnesses. The statement of Smt. Bhagwanti has not been corroborated by any independent witnesses. Only Sohan Lal, who is the husband of Smt. Bhagwanti and who was not present at the place of occurrence, has corroborated the statement of Smt. Bhagwanti. In her statement, Smt. Bhagwanti deposed with regard to the presence of Ghoti, Jetharam and Hanuman at the time of occurrence but the prosecution has filed to produce any of the said witness in support of its case. 11. In this matter, the learned trial court held guilty to the accused-appellant Ram Pratap for offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. The prosecution has filed to produce any independent witness in support of its case that the accused-appellants had tried to outrage the modesty of Smt. Bhagwanti. In support of statement of Smt. Bhagwanti, only her husband Sohan Lal has been examined. In my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances, the statement of Smt. Bhagwanti cannot be said to be trustworthy. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Ram Pratap by the trial court punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act of 1989 is liable to be set aside. 12. So far as the offences under Sections 457 & 354 IPC are concerned, the finding of the trial court with regard to the said offences is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The statement of the prosecutrix found to be not trustworthy and eye witnesses named in the FIR have not been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 21.04.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.146/1994 is set aside and the accused-appellant Nathu Ram is acquitted from the offences under Sections 457 & 354 IPC and the accused-appellant Ram Pratap is acquitted from the offences under Sections 457 & 354 IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. The accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.