Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 95 (RAJ)

Hukumat Ray v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This criminal misc. Stay application has been filed under section 389 Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5/6/2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case no. 59/2008 by which he has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced him to undergo six months Simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Vijay Kumar Malhotra preferred a complaint before the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 21.11.2007 against the accused appellant. On the date of filing of complaint, the complainant was posted in the office of Rajasthan Transport Department, Jaipur as Personal Assistant. Thereafter, he has been transferred from RTO Jagatpura to RTO Jhalana Dungari. It was mentioned in the complaint that the accused was inimical to him and always insulted and intimidated him with an intention to humiliate the complainant, since he is a member of scheduled caste within public purview. The complainant also informed and made a complaint in the Department, however, the authorities have failed to take any action against the accused appellant. The complainant also informed and made a complaint in the Department, however, the authorities have failed to take any action against the accused appellant. The averments made in complaint read as under: " ifjoknh vuqlwfpr tkfr ([kVhd) dk lnL; gksus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDr ifjoknh dk fdlh uk fdlh ckr ij vU; lgdfeZ;ksa ds le{k Hkh viekfur djrk jgrk gS ,oa tkfrlwpd ejs tkuojksa dh peM+h mrkju okys] pekj] xkyh&xykSp dj izrkfM+r djrk jgrk gSA ifjoknh }kjk foHkkx esa dk;Zjr jgrs gq,] jktdh; Mkd fjlho djokrs le; Hkh vfHk;qDr }kjk ifjoknh ls xkyh&xykSp o tkfr lwpd 'kCnksa lkys [kfVdM+s cdjk dkVus okys] peM+k jaxus okys] Hkaxh rsjs Nwus ls Mkd Hkh vNwrh gks xbZ gS bl izdkj ls viekfur fd;k tkrk gSA ifjoknh }kjk vfHk;qDr ds mDr vkpj.k dk ekSf[kd izfrjks/k djus ij vfHk;qDr }kjk /kedk;k tkrk gS fd ifjogu o iqfyl foHkkx ds mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ls esjh mWaph igqap gS] rq>s dVh[kM+s dks feuVksa esa c[kZLr@fuyfEcr djok nwaxk rFkk fdlh >wBs ekeys esa Hkh Qalok dj tsy fHktok nwaxkA ifjoknh tc fnukad 13-11-2007 dks tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k c;ku nsus x;k rks vfHk;qDr }kjk iqu% ifjoknh dks /kedh nh xbZ lkys [kVhdM+s cdjk dkVus okys] peM+k jaxus okys Hkaxh ;fn rwus esjs f[kykQ ,d Hkh ,d 'kCn c;ku fd;k rks rsjs gkFk iSj rqM+ok nwaxk] viuh f'kdk;r okil ys ys] ugha rks rq>s >wBs eqndesa esa Qalk dj tsy fHktok nwaxkA fnuakd 16-11-2007 dks lqcg djhc 09-10 cts ifjoknh vius iSr`d fuokl e.Mh [kVhdku] jkexat ls vius vkWfQl >kykuk Mwaxjh ds fy;s vius tkudkj Jh jke Hkjksls ds lkFk eksVjlkbZfdy ls tk jgk Fkk vkSj tokgjuxj dh rjQ lkguh <+kck] cQZ[kkus ds ikl igqapk rHkh vfHk;qDr vius rhu pkj lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk] tks igys ls gh ogka ekStwn Fkk] us ifjoknh dks jksdk vkSj xanh&2 xkfy;ka rFkk lwpd 'kCn "lkys [kVhdM+s] Hkaxh] pekj" nsrs gq, f'kdk;r okfil ysus ds fy;s /kedk;kA ,slk ugha djus ij xaHkhj ifj.kke Hkqxrku dh /kedh nhA ifjoknh us bldk fojks/k fd;k rks vfHk;qDr o mlds lkfFk;ksa us ftudksa ifjoknh 'kDy ls igpku ldrk gS] uke ugha tkurk gS] fxjcku idM+ dj /kedk;kA ifjoknh ds lkFk jkeHkj.k rFkk ;krk;kr lykgdkj Jh ujksRre R;kh ,oa muds lkFk vU; O;fDr ogka ls xqtj jgs Fks] tks eq>s tkurs Fks] us :ddj] chp cpko dj eq>s vfHk;qDr o mlds lkfFk;ksa ls cpk;kA mDr ?kVuk dh f'kdk;r ifjoknh] iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj] t;iqj esa ntZ djokus x;k ysfdu iqfyl }kjk dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZA bl dkj.k ;g ifjokn izLrqr fd;k x;k ftl ij U;k;ky; }kjk ifjoknh ds c;ku ysdj vkSj cgl izlaKku lqudj mijksDrkuqlkj vfHk;qDr ds fo:) izFke n`"V;k vkjksfir vijk/k cuuk ik, tkus ij izdj.k dfeV fd;k x;kA " 3. After that he has also submitted a report before the concerned SHO who has failed to take any action on the report submitted by the complainant therefore he has submitted a complaint before the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 21.11.2007 who recorded the statement of complainant and thereafter took cognizance against the accused appellant. The case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur. The trial court framed the charges under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After framing charge, the trial court recorded the statements of 9 prosecution witnesses and the statement of the accused appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The parties have amicably settled their dispute by submitting compromise and on the basis of compromise, the accused appellant has been acquitted for the offence under sections 341 and 323 IPC but he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Against the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused appellant preferred an appeal along with an application for suspension of sentence. His sentence was suspended by this court vide order dated 1/7/2013. This stay application has been moved for suspending the conviction of the appellant with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to accept and allow this stay application and may kindly stay the conviction of the appellant/petitioner recorded by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case no. 59/2008 during the pendency of the criminal appeal. Such other appropriate order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of the appellant." 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submit that the parties have entered into compromise and they have amicably settled their dispute. It is further submitted that the accused appellant is a Government servant hence his conviction, passed by the court below, be stayed till the decision of the instant criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submit that the parties have entered into compromise and they have amicably settled their dispute. It is further submitted that the accused appellant is a Government servant hence his conviction, passed by the court below, be stayed till the decision of the instant criminal appeal. In support of his case, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Lalsai Khunte v. Nirmal Sinha & Other 2007 (3) SCC (Cri.) 149, judgment delivered by this court in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of conviction no. 693/2009 and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Prabhu Yadav and others v. State of UP (Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No.3712 of 2010. 5. Mr. Brahmanand Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State has opposed the stay application. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into account the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the of Lalsai Khunte (supra) as well as judgment of this court in Pratap Singh (supra) and the judgment of Allahbad High Court in the case of Prabhu Yadav (supra), this court is of the view that the accused appellant has been acquitted for the charges u/Ss 323 and 341 IPC and has only been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the fact that the appellant is a Government servant and if his conviction is not stayed, it will effect his service career as he being a Government servant. 7. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, the conviction of the accused appellant-Hukumat Ray awarded by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur vide judgment dated 5/6/2013 in Sessions Case no. 59/2008 under Sections 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the instant criminal appeal. 8. Accordingly, the criminal stay application for staying the conviction of the accused appellant stands allowed.