Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 979 (RAJ)

Gautam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-12

KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur dated 20.12.1991. By this judgment, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 IPC and sentenced the accused-appellant as under :- Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act - Six month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month's additional imprisonment. Section 323 - A fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof to further undergo one month's additional imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved by the above said judgment of conviction, accused-appellant preferred the instant appeal before this court. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant that learned trial court has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that as per prosecution on 16.04.1991 complainant Shiva lodged a FIR at Police Station, Salumber about the incident. As per which on 15.04.1991 at 09:30 PM when the accused-appellant came and abused the complainant and started beating while using filthy language with regard to his caste-Balai. A case was registered against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial Judge while convicting the accused-appellant did not appreciate the prosecution evidence properly and wrongly convicted him for the said offences. It is further submitted that the incident took place on 15.04.1991 but the FIR was lodged next day i.e. 16.04.1991 but no reasonable explanation was given by the complainant about the delay in submitting report. On the sole ground of delay the whole case of prosecution can be thrown out. It is further submitted that all the witnesses are close relatives of the complainant. Therefore, their testimony seems to be in doubt. It is further submitted that accused-appellant used to purchase things from the shop of complainant and he was his regular customer. There was material improvements in the statement of complainant and there are some contradictions also between the alleged eye witnesses but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the witnesses in right perspective. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused-appellant may be acquitted from the above said charges. 4. There was material improvements in the statement of complainant and there are some contradictions also between the alleged eye witnesses but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the witnesses in right perspective. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused-appellant may be acquitted from the above said charges. 4. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and he supported the judgment. He submits that offences were duly proved by the evidence collected on record and the learned trial court rightly found the accused-appellant guilty of the offences. Therefore, no interference is required. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The provisions of Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as under:- “3. Punishment for offences of atrocities – (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, :- (x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” 7. According to the above mentioned provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for conviction under this two essential ingredients must be proved by the prosecution that the accused utter some caste related words to the effected person and due to these words “Insult” or “Intimidates” caused to the effected person. 8. In the case in hand, according to the story of prosecution effected person is Shiva. During the trial, his statement was recorded by the learned trial court. The complainant Shiva in his statement stated that on 15.04.1991 at about 0930 PM when he was sitting on his shop along with Gopal & Dhula then accused-appellant Gautam Singh came there and he asked that- ^^xkSre flag vk;k tks gkftj vnkyr eqyfte xkSre flag vk;k vkSj dgk fd cgupksn cykVs rqus gekjs ekSgYys esa nqdku dSls yxk j[kh gSA vkSj mlds ckn esa Hkh mlus dgka fd Hksupksn ;gka ls Hkkx tk rsjs dks dbZ ckj euk fd;k vkSj dgk fd rq uhp tkfr dk gS ;gka ij nqdku yxkdj cSB x;k gS fQj esjs lkFk eqDdksa vkSj ykrksa ls ekjihV dhA** 9. According to the above statement of complainant Shiva, accused-appellant used filthy words about the so-called effected person Shiva. But there is no evidence that by this act of accused-appellant Gautam Singh complainant Shiva got “Insults” or “Intimidates”. His statement shows that accused appellant only stated some words to Shiva, which relates to his caste, merely on daring such words, accused-appellant can not be convicted for the above said offence. So in the opinion of this court, there is no sufficient evidence for conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 10. So far as the conviction of Section 323 IPC is concerned complainant/PW-2 Shiva stated in his statement that- ^^xkSre flag vk;k tks gkftj vnkyr eqyfte xkSre flag vk;k vkSj dgk fd cgupksn cykVs rqus gekjs ekSgYys esa nqdku dSls yxk j[kh gSA vkSj mlds ckn esa Hkh mlus dgka fd Hksupksn ;gka ls Hkkx tk rsjs dks dbZ ckj euk fd;k vkSj dgk fd rq uhp tkfr dk gS ;gka ij nqdku yxkdj cSB x;k gS fQj esjs lkFk eqDdksa vkSj ykrksa ls ekjihV dhA** 11. Nothing adverse statement came in the cross-examination of Shiva. On the basis of above statement, it is clearly proved that accused-appellant Gautam caused some injuries on the person of complainant/injured Shiva. 12. Dr. B.L. Verma (PW-8) stated in his statement that there was five injuries found on the person of Shiva all of the injuries were simple in nature and caused by a blunt weapon. 13. On the basis of above statement of Dr. B.L. Verma, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Gautam Singh caused simple injuries on the person of Shiva by blunt weapon. This act of accused-appellant Gautam Singh clearly proves that accused-appellant Gautam Singh caused offence against the complainant/injured Shiva which is punishable under Section 323 IPC. 14. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant on the quantum of punishment. 15. The so-called incident is of 15.04.1991 and is about 25 years old. This offence is punishable maximum for one year simple imprisonment. At the time of incident accused-appellant Gautam Singh was 30 years old. Looking to the all above facts, I deem it proper to release accused-appellant after due admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act on probation of good conduct. 16. In the result, the appeal preferred by accused-appellant is partly accepted. At the time of incident accused-appellant Gautam Singh was 30 years old. Looking to the all above facts, I deem it proper to release accused-appellant after due admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act on probation of good conduct. 16. In the result, the appeal preferred by accused-appellant is partly accepted. The accused-appellant is acquitted for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Conviction of accused-appellant Gautam Singh for offence under Section 323 IPC is confirmed. The accused-appellant Gautam Singh is released on probation of good conduct under Section 3 of probation of Offenders Act, 1958, after due admonition. A copy of order be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.