Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 181 (RAJ)

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-21

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Hari Singh being aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 31.01.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu in Special Sessions Case No.37/92, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:- Conviction for Offences Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount Default  Sentences Under Section 447 IPC One months SI Rs.100/- Ten days SI Under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act 6 months SI Rs.100/- Ten days SI 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that the parties arrived at a settlement during pendency of the trial and thus, the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 325 IPC by attesting the compromise to that extent. However, as the offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not compoundable, the trial court has awarded minimum sentence of six months to the appellant on that count. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and the record it is apparent that as per the case set out in the FIR Ex.P/1 lodged by the complainant Jhandu Ram, the accused entered into his house and hurled caste based abuses towards his wife while inquiring about his whereabouts. The star prosecution witness is none else than Mrs. Rajli PW-2, the wife of the complainant, who stated in her examination-in-chief that she was sleeping inside her house, in the afternoon at about 3 o'clock, when Hari Singh came there and hurled caste based abuses and asked as to where her husband was. Her husband came home, on which, Hari Singh gave him a lathi blow and broke his hand. In cross examination, the witness admitted that Hari Singh hurled general abuses her which were not caste based. 5. In view of this categoric admission of the star prosecution witness Mrs. Rajli two things become clear:- 1. That the incident took place inside the house of the complainant, which cannot be considered to be a place within public view. 2. In cross examination, the lady Mrs. Rajli admitted that the accused did not hurl any caste based abuses at her. 6. Rajli two things become clear:- 1. That the incident took place inside the house of the complainant, which cannot be considered to be a place within public view. 2. In cross examination, the lady Mrs. Rajli admitted that the accused did not hurl any caste based abuses at her. 6. As an upshot of the above factual position, I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the accused appellant deserves to be and is acquitted of the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Regarding the charge under Section 447 IPC, it may be noted that the complainant unequivocally prayed for composition of the case with the accused before the trial court. The trial court verified the compromise application to the extent of the offence under Section 325 IPC. It appears that sheerly by omission, the offence under Section 447 of the IPC was not compounded. Therefore, the offence under Section 447 IPC, of which, the accused has been convicted also deserves to be compounded and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the said charge as well. The impugned judgment dated 31.01.1994 is quashed and set aside. 8. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437- A CrPC, the acquitted accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court. 9. The appeal is allowed in these terms. Record be returned to the trial court.