Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 887 (RAJ)

Bhashi @ Subhash v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bhashi @ Subhash being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sri Ganganagar in sessions Case No. 40/1994 whereby, he was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court is totally unjustified. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective. He contended that there are grave contradictions inter se in the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses. The incident took place in two parts. The first informant PWI Major Singh in his testimony did not allege that the appellant abused him during the first incident. The second part of the incident allegedly took place outside the house of Major Singh where both the appellant herein as well as co-accused Ganga Ram are alleged to have hurled caste based abuses towards Major Singh. He submitted that the appellant and Major Singh were not known from before and, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to have hurled caste based abuses with the intention of insulting the complainant. He further argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted then also, the case involves simple verbal altercation between the parties and no convicting and sentencing the appellant as above. He, therefore, urged that the appeal should be accepted and while setting aside the judgment of conviction, the appellant herein deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's Counsel. He urged that the first informant PW1 Major Singh as well as the prosecution witnesses PW2 Manjeet Kaur and PW3 Jasvir Singh gave clinching evidence to the effect that the appellant hurled caste based abuses the insulting them. Thus, as per him, the finding of conviction and guilt of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence available on record and does not call for any interference whatsoever. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. Thus, as per him, the finding of conviction and guilt of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence available on record and does not call for any interference whatsoever. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. The substratum of the prosecution story as revealed shows that the incident took place in two parts. In the first part of the incident, the appellant and another boy, who was later on identified as Ganga Ram, were passing from near the house of the first informant. The appellant's companion started talking to the first informant. The appellant tried to take him away whereupon verbal exchanges took place between the appellant and the first informant. The appellant became enraged and allegedly brought a pair of scissors from a nearby shop named Supernice Tailor and tried to assault Major Singh. Rameshwarlal and Jasveer Singh intervened, upon which the accused went away. Five minutes later the appellant herein, Gangaram, Raju and 5-6 other boys came outside the house of Major Singh and started shouting. However, Major Singh did not come out of the house. The accused persons kept on hurling abuses towards, the house of the first informant Major Singh and threatened to harm him when he came out. Admittedly, the first informant Major Singh had gone away. Thus, evidently in the first incident, no abuses were hurled by the accused towards the first informant. In the second part of the incident, abuses were allegedly hurled towards the closed doors of the complainant's house by the appellant herein, Ganga Ram and some other persons. 6. The first informant admittedly did not come out of his house and thus, by no stretch of imagination, can it be concluded with any degree of certainty that the appellant intentionally abused the first informant so as to bring his conduct within the mischief of SC/ST Act. The evidence of three prosecution witnesses namely, the first informant. PW1 Major Singh, PW2 Manjeet Kaur and PW3 Jasvir Singh is highly contradictory. Furthermore, the first informant Major Singh, while deposing in the Court made significant improvements from the version as set out in the written FIR. The evidence of three prosecution witnesses namely, the first informant. PW1 Major Singh, PW2 Manjeet Kaur and PW3 Jasvir Singh is highly contradictory. Furthermore, the first informant Major Singh, while deposing in the Court made significant improvements from the version as set out in the written FIR. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not convincing and reliable co-accused Ganga Ram and Raju who were also accused, were acquitted by the Trial Court by disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the findings recorded by the Trial Court for convicting and sentencing the appellant are not based on a just and proper appreciation of evidence available on record and cannot be sustained. 7. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal deserved to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 01.08.1994 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. His bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. Record be sent back forthwith.