Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 891 (RAJ)

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-21

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18.11.1995 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh (for short ’the Trial Court’ hereinafter) in Special Sessions Case No. 5/1995, whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(5) and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989' hereinafter) and under Section 447 I.P.C. and Sentenced him as under: Under Section 3(1)(5) of SC/ST Act: Six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act: Six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Under Section 447 I.P.C.: Two months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 20.9.1994, complainant PW-1 Lakhma submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Akola, inter alia, stating therein that he purchased some parts of agricultural land of Araji No. 618 from Mangi Lal son of Nanda arid Hajari son of Megha on 13.4.1994 in the name of his son Babu Lal for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- through registered documents. Later on, he sold the grass cultivated on the said agricultural land to PW-2 Vardi Shanker for a consideration of Rs. 800/-. It is alleged that on 19.9.1994 when Vardi Shanker took his buffaloes to the said agricultural field for grazing the, then the appellant Mangi Lal son of Devji and one Deu Bai daughter of Devji came there armed with stick and Koonth and forcibly get the buffaloes of Vardi Shanker out from the said agricultural filed and Entered their cattle for grazing. It is alleged that when the complainant asked them not to do so, they abused him with casteist remarks and also appellant and Deu Bai do not want the possession of the complainant over the said land. 3. Upon receiving the aforesaid report, F.I.R. No. 157/1994 was registered at Police Station, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. read with Section 3(5)(10) of the Act of 1989 and investigation was commenced. 3. Upon receiving the aforesaid report, F.I.R. No. 157/1994 was registered at Police Station, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. read with Section 3(5)(10) of the Act of 1989 and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. read with Section 3(5)(x) of the Act of 1989. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, had produced as many as 7 witnesses and also got exhibited 9 documents. Statements of accused-appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused-appellant got himself examined as DW-1 and also produced Nathu and Deu Bai as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively and also got exhibited certain documents in defence. 5. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the appellant in defence has acquitted the accused-appellant from the offence punishable under Section 427 I.P.C., however, convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)(5) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. Assailing the validity of the impugned judgment dated 18.11.1995 passed by the Trial Court, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has not rightly taken into consideration the fact that there was delay of one day in filing the F.I.R. against the accused-appellant. It is also argued that it was clearly established from record that the complainant had a definite motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellant because earlier the accused-appellant had initiated proceedings against the complainant under Sections 145, 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. (Exp.D-4) and after more than a month of initiation of the said proceedings, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. against the appellant. It is also argued that from the statement of the complainant PW-1 Lakhma, it is clear that he has not stated in his statement that the accused-appellant had abused him with casteist remarks and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. It is also argued that from the statement of the complainant PW-1 Lakhma, it is clear that he has not stated in his statement that the accused-appellant had abused him with casteist remarks and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. It is further argued that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the appellant had intentionally dispossessed the complainant from the agricultural field and, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(5) of the Act of 1989 is also not made but against the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that so far as offence under Section 447 I.P.C. is concerned, there must be evidence to the effect that the person accused of commission of said offence should have acted predominantly with intention to intimidate, insult, annoy any person or to commit the offence and simply because he has trespassed over the land belonging to the compliant, it cannot be presumed that there was any intention of the appellant to intimidate insult or annoyance. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that before the Trial Court, the accused-appellant came out with a specific; defence that as he had initiated the proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. against the complainant a month prior to the filing of the complaint against him, the complainant has lodged the F.I.R. against him stating false story. It is also argued that in fact no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. ever took place and most of the eye-witnesses have not supported the version of the complainant in their statements recorded before the Trial Court. It is further argued that there is grave contradiction in the statements of PW-1 Lakhma and PW-2 Vardi Shanker and from that piece of evidence, it is clear that the case against the accused-appellant is false. 7. It is further argued that there is grave contradiction in the statements of PW-1 Lakhma and PW-2 Vardi Shanker and from that piece of evidence, it is clear that the case against the accused-appellant is false. 7. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that though the appellant himself got examined as defence witness along with two other defence witnesses but the defence witnesses have not subjected to any cross-examination by the prosecution on the point of initiation of the proceedings by the appellant against the complainant under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. and this fact itself goes to show that the prosecution was not in a position to challenge the testimonies of defence witnesses. It is argued that testimony of the defence witnesses is to be appreciated, apprised and evaluated in the same manner of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, however, the Trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the defence evidence adduced by the accused-appellant. Hence, the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1)(5) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. On the strength of the above arguments, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has prayed that the impugned judgment may kindly be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1)(5) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and argued that the prosecution had sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellant and, therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the Trial Court and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and carefully scrutinised the record of the Trial Court. 11. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and carefully scrutinised the record of the Trial Court. 11. As per PW-1 Lakhma, the incident took place on 19.9.1994 at about 12:00 noon, however, the F.I.R for the alleged incident was lodged by PW-1 on 20.9.1994 at about 10:00 A.M. In his statement recorded before the Trial Court, PW-1 did not provide any explanation regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he went to file the F.I.R. after taking motorcycle of PW-2 Vardi Shanker, however, Vardi Shanker has denied that he gave his motorcycle to the accused-appellant when he went to lodge the F.I.R. against the accused-appellant. 12. It is noticed that PW-1 Lakhma, in his statement, has simply stated that accused-appellant-Mangi Lal and asked him that he is belonging to a lower caste but not stated that which specific word regarding his caste had uttered by the appellant. It is also noticed that PW-1 in his statement has nowhere stated that the accused-appellant had tried to dispossess him from his agricultural field. He has simply stated that the accused-appellant had got the cattle of PW-2 Vardi Shanker out from the agricultural filed and got his cattle entered in the said agricultural field. PW-2 Vardi Shanker in his statement, though has stated that the accused-appellant had abused the complainant-PW-1 Lakhma by uttering the word about his caste, but PW-1 himself has not levelled any allegation of this effect. 13. It is also noticed that there is a contradiction in the statements of PW-1 lakhma and PW-2 Vardi Shanker in respect of payment of Rs. 800/- for the purpose of grazing cattle in the agricultural filed belonging to PW-1 Lakhma. In his statement, Lakhma has stated that he received a sum of Rs. 800/- in advance from PW-2 Vardi Shanker, whereas Vardi Shanker has stated that he had given if Rs. 800/- to PW-1 Lakhma after the incident. PW-3 Mohan Lal, the alleged eye-witness of the incident, has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. He has specifically denied that any such incident as complaint by PW-1 Lakhma ever happened. Similarly, PW-4 Hajari, the alleged eye-witness has also not supported the prosecution story. PW-5 Ratan Lal, the alleged eye-witness has also not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. 14. He has specifically denied that any such incident as complaint by PW-1 Lakhma ever happened. Similarly, PW-4 Hajari, the alleged eye-witness has also not supported the prosecution story. PW-5 Ratan Lal, the alleged eye-witness has also not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. 14. It is also noticed that the accused-appellant has come with specific defence that prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. on 11.8.1994, he had initiated the proceedings against the complainant-Lakhma and others under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.O. Kapasan in which, the S.D.O. Kapasan passed an order on 4.9.1994 and directed the complainant Lakhma and others to furnish bonds to keep the peace. The application filed by the appellant under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. and the order passed by the S.D.O. dated 4.9.1994 are produced as Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4. In support of his defence, the appellant got himself examined as DW-1 along with two other witnesses viz. DW-2 Nathu and DW-3 Deu Bai. All the defence witnesses have clearly stated that the complainant has filed false F.I.R. against the accused-appellant because the accused-appellant had initiated the proceedings against him under Section 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.O. Kapasan. Strangely, PW-1 Lakhma in his statement has denied any such proceeding against him before the S.D.O. Kapasan though the documentary evidence was produced by the accused-appellant to prove his defence. It is also significant to note that the defence witnesses have not been subjected to any cross-examination on the point of initiation of proceedings against the complainant under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the accused-appellant and this fact goes to show that the prosecution was not in a position to challenge the testimonies of these witnesses. 15. This Court is of the opinion that testimony of the defence witnesses is also to be appreciated and evaluated in the same manner as of the testimony of the prosecution witness. 16. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully scrutinising the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as by defence, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has grossly erred in convicting the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1)(5) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. 17. Hence, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. 17. Hence, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 18.11.1995 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh, so far it relates to conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1)(5) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, is set aside Accused-appellant Mangi Lal son of Devaji is acquitted from the aforesaid offences. He is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. Record of the Trial Court be sent forthwith.