Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1751 (RAJ)

Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-20

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2018
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 31.01.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in Sessions Case No. 2/1992 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced as under :- Section 379 IPC - Six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further ten days' S.I. Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act - Six months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further ten days' S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.09.1991, Govind Ram filed a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station, Sujangarh in which he mentioned that he was working as a labourer in Bhanwar lal's field. On 16.09.1991 Bhanwar lal gave Rs. 3800/- for buying stones and asked him to pay Rs. 2800 to Tej Singh and keep Rs. 1000/- for his labour. At that time, Aasa Ram and Phepha Ram were also present. Thereafter, he alongwith Jawahara Ram went to the field of Tej Singh to bring stones. The complainant gave Rs. 2800/- to Tej Singh, took stones. On the way back, accused Ratan Singh met them and accompanied them in a camel cart. It is stated that on the way, Ratan Singh who was drunk, started abusing the complainant and pushed him hard. Due to this he fell down from the cart. The accused gave fist blows to the complainant and Jawahara Ram; and snatched away Rs. 1000/- from his shirt pocket. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, case was registered by the police. The police after due investigation filed challan against the accused appellant. 4. The trial Court framed charges against the accused appellant for offence under Section 392 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of 07 witnesses and exhibited documents. The statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded. On the defence side, statement of DW/1 Jagmal Singh was recorded. 6. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of 07 witnesses and exhibited documents. The statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded. On the defence side, statement of DW/1 Jagmal Singh was recorded. 6. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as mentioned earlier. 7. Counsel for the appellant submits that a false case has been roped against the appellant as the so called independent witness Asa Ram was not examined by the prosecution and other independent witnesses PW/6 Phepha Ram and PW/7 Tej Singh both examined by the prosecution have been declared hostile. Thus, the prosecution case is not corroborated by the independent witnesses. He further argued that torn shirt and the receipt of purchasing stones were also not produced by the prosecution. The so called witness Bala Ram was also not examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that no recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner and no injury report of complainant has been produced by the prosecution. He further argued that upon perusal of the statements of witnesses, it shows that no offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act is made out as the complainant and other witnesses merely mentioned that appellant used abusive language without specifying its details (abusive words). Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the accused appellant be acquitted for the offence under Section 379 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Special Judge in convicting the accused appellant for offence under Section 379 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act. 9. I have heard counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the entire record. 10. It is not in dispute that for making offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST Act, it is necessary that a person intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. 10. It is not in dispute that for making offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST Act, it is necessary that a person intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. PW/1 Bhanwar lal who was the owner of the field gave Rs. 3800/- to Govind Ram out of which Rs. 2800/- was given to Tej Singh and Rs. 1000/- was to be kept by Govind Ram. Later on he was informed that accused had snatched Rs. 1000/- from Govind Ram and beaten him. However, he has not mentioned the details of abusive language used by the appellant. 11. PW/3 Govind Ram who is the complainant in this case has stated that the accused appellant used abusive language and snatched away Rs. 1000/- from him. PW/6 Phepha Ram and PW/7 Tej Singh both are independent witnesses and they have been declared hostile. 12. Thus, on perusal of these statements, it is clear that the accused have not used any abusive language with intention to humiliate the complainant in an open place or public view, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST Act cannot be said to be made out. 13. So far as offence under Section 379 IPC is concerned, all the witnesses clearly stated that the accused appellant snatched Rs. 1000/- from the complainant, therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court for offence under Section 379 IPC is liable to be maintained. However, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars from 04.10.1991 to 11.11.1991 so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial therefore, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 379 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the amount of fine imposed for offence under Section 379 IPC from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 2000/-. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant for offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is quashed and set aside. However, while maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Sections 379 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. 100/- to Rs. 2000/-. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant for offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is quashed and set aside. However, while maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Sections 379 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. However, for offence under Section 379 IPC while maintaining the conviction, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 2000/- . The aforesaid fine shall be deposited by the appellant in the trial court within two months from the date of this order, and on such deposit, the amount shall be disbursed to the complainant Govind Ram. In default of such deposit within the stipulated period, this appeal shall stand dismissed and the appellant shall be sent to jail to serve remaining sentence. 15. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.