Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1113 (RAJ)

Lala Ram v. State

2022-04-06

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) IPC has been preferred against the order dated 30.08.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District & Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case (SC/ST) No.54/1992, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months simple imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that complainant-Gordhan Ram filed a complaint before the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in relation to an incident alleged to have been occurred on 13.09.1990 at about 6:00 p.m., narrating therein that while the complainant was taking water from the pot kept in the hotel of the accused, the accused- appellant hurled caste based abuses against the complainant and drove him out of the hotel; the said complaint was filed on the next date, and not on the very same day. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that the said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon after due investigation, the police filed a negative final report. Learned counsel however, submits that against the said negative final report, the complainant filed a protest petition, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 323 & 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the matter was committed to the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, (Sessions Judge), Balotra. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submits that after committal of the case, the learned trial court framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 3(1) (1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submits that after committal of the case, the learned trial court framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 3(1) (1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial court, without appreciating the fact that the evidences as placed before the learned court were not only insufficient for framing of the charge, but also for the purpose of convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, as above; this is more so when no independent witness was produced and examined by the learned trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant harped upon the inconsistency between the statement rendered by PW-1 Gordhan Ram (complainant) and that of PW-3 Narayan & PW-4 Chain Singh. Learned counsel submits that the complainant in his statement has deposed that Narayan and Chain Singh were present in the hotel of the accused when the alleged incident took place and came to the rescue of the complainant at the relevant time; whereas Narayan and Chain Singh in their statement made a deposition that at the relevant time, they were sitting in the hotel of one Karnsingh, which was located near the hotel of the present accused-appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the said Narayan has even discarded his statement given before the police. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submits that the complainant in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. stated that during the alleged incident, the accused-appellant had asked about his identity, whereas in his cross-examination as PW-1, the complainant deposed that he knows the accused for last ten years; and if it is so, it is highly doubtful that the accused would have asked the complainant about his identity. Learned counsel further submits that since other persons were also taking water from the pot kept in the hotel of the accused without disclosing their respective identity, particularly, on the askance of the accused, therefore, it is highly improbable that the accused would have asked about the identity of the complainant only, more specifically to hurl caste based abuses against him, as alleged, while the complainant was taking water from the pot. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also harped upon the unexplained delay in filing the complaint by the complainant before the learned Magistrate, while submitting that despite the complainant being resident of Barmer itself, no reason is forthcoming as to why he did not file the complaint before the police station at Barmer on the same day, instead of filing the complainant before the learned Magistrate belatedly. 9. Thus, as per learned counsel, the aforementioned backdrop clearly reflects various inconsistencies between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that of the complainant. The same clearly shows that the criminal proceedings were launched against the present accused-appellant just to settle personal scores, while abusing the process of law, that too under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused- appellant by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same lacks, amongst others, appreciation of the evidence available on record, for the purpose of charging and convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under the SC/ST Act, in particular. Learned counsel lastly submits that even if it is assumed that the accused-appellant is not entitled for honorable acquittal, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in view of the material consistencies in the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses and the complainant himself, the benefit of doubt deserves to be extended to the present accused-appellant. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused- appellant, submits that the alleged delay in filing the complaint was appropriately dealt with by the learned trial court while finding that there is no delay in filing such complaint, which can be said to be detrimental to the case of the prosecution. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the contention on behalf of the accused-appellant regarding inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the complainant, have not been found to be proved before the learned trial court, and rightly so, particularly for invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the contention on behalf of the accused-appellant regarding inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the complainant, have not been found to be proved before the learned trial court, and rightly so, particularly for invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court has duly appreciated the evidence placed before it, before passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the present accused-appellant, with a finding that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that even if the delay in filing the complaint is ignored, then also, the inconsistencies, even if minor, are discernible on the face of the record. 14. This Court is also conscious of the stringent provisions contained in the SC/ST Act and the legislative intent behind the said enactment. However, this Court finds that the record of the case, including the statements of the witnesses and the complainant, clearly speaks of contradictions between them. It is settled law that the contradictions even if minor cannot be put into action to convict and sentence any person for the concerned offence; even if there is an iota of minor consistency, the benefit of doubt, as per law, is required to be extended to the accused person concerned. 15. This Court is further conscious of the fact that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 30.08.1993 for the conviction in question is six months rigorous imprisonment; such sentence was however, suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.09.1993 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail/Suspension of Sentence Petition No.335/1993. 16. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it a fit case for acquittal of the present accused-appellant, by extending him the benefit of doubt. 17. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed, while extending the benefit of doubt to the present accused-appellant. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded vide the impugned judgment dated 30.08.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District & Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case (SC/ST) No.54/1992 is quashed and set aside. 17. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed, while extending the benefit of doubt to the present accused-appellant. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded vide the impugned judgment dated 30.08.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District & Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case (SC/ST) No.54/1992 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him, while giving him the benefit of doubt. The appellant is on bail; he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.