Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1541 (RAJ)

Lalita Devi Harizan (smt. ) v. State of Rajasthan

2018-07-20

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2018
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The appellant-complainant has filed this present Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 6.10.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act Cases), Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 1/2015 whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted from the offences under Sections 323/34, 341 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) j Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant along with his father-in-law Khera Ram submitted a written report before the police alleging inter alia that the appellant had taken the field and well of one Mahendra Kumar on contract. On 4.7.2014 when the appellant along with her family members were on the field, then at about 1.00 P.M., accused Omkarmal, Jagdish Purohit, Ummed Singh and Abhay Singh in connivance with each other entered into the field and started quarrelling. On raising objection, accused Omkarmal, Ummed Singh and Abhay Singh pushed the appellant and Omkarmal tried to remove her clothes. It is stated that when the complainant raised hue and cry, her father-in-law and husband came and intervened but the accused used abusive language against her father-in -law and husband and also assaulted one Indra W/o Pratap Ram. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, case was registered at Police Station Barloot, Sirohi. After due investigation, the police filed challan for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused respondents before the Trial Court. 4. The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences and the trial commenced. The accused respondent denied the charges and claimed for trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited four documents. Thereafter, the statement of accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. One witness DW-1 Prabhu Ram was examined on behalf of the accused-respondents and exhibited six documents in their defence. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the Trial Court vide judgment dated 6.10.2016 acquitted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. Hence this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence, wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. Hence this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence, wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of prosecution witnesses in correct perspective. It is argued that the Trial Court gave much importance to the minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses whereas, which is not sustainable in the eye of the law. It is argued that the whole episode cannot be rejected merely on the basis of minor contradictions in the prosecution witnesses. 7. I have heard Counsel for the appellant and Public Prosecutor and gone through the entire record. 8. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned Trial Court, it appears that the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents on the basis of contradictions and also the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to bring home the charge under Sections 341, 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(l)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was also held by the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent had committed the alleged offence knowing that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste/ Tribe. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the Trial Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court. The judgment passed by the Court below is perfectly according to the law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 10 page 136 has categorically observed that: "It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." 10. Thus the impugned judgment dated 6.10.2016 passed by the Court below does not call for any interference. Hence, the instant appeal stands dismissed.