Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1224 (RAJ)

Deen Dayal v. State of Rajasthan

2022-04-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER : 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 revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed. The order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria in Criminal Revision No.38/2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria dated 24.07.2009 may kindly be restored.” 3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner are that the complainant/petitioner submitted a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya on 06.10.2008, levelling allegations against the accused-respondents regarding assaulting the complainant/petitioner as well as hurling caste based abuses against him; the same was sent by the learned court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to be conducted by the Aarakshi Kendra, Sangariya, whereupon an FIR bearing No.552/2008 for the offences under Section 323 & 342 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered at Police Station, Sangariya District Hanumangarh, and after investigation, negative final report was submitted before the learned trial court. 3.1 Thereafter, upon being summoned, complainant/petitioner Deendayal and others (Daulat Ram, Lal Chand & Jaspal) appeared before the learned trial court, whereupon their statements were recorded; whereafter, upon hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the learned trial court vide its order dated 24.07.2009 took cognizance against the accused-respondents (Gopal Singh and Arjun Singh) under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC only, while declining to accept the negative final report submitted by the police, and accordingly, the matter was ordered to be registered as a criminal complaint/case. 3.2 Against the aforesaid cognizance order, the accused-respondents herein filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya (learned revisional court), which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 03.03.2010, while quashing and setting aside the cognizance order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned revisional court, the present petition has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned revisional court, the present petition has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that the learned revisional court has erred in passing the impugned order; and that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the fact that the testimonies of witnesses lent support to the case of the petitioner/complainant, which was supplemented by medical evidence (injury report), wherein two injuries were found on the body of the petitioner. And that, the witnesses’ testimony when coupled with the medical evidence, offences under Section 323/34 I.P.C. was found to be made out against the accused-respondents, and thus, the cognizance order passed by the learned trial court was perfectly justified, and the same has wrongly been interfered with by the learned revisional court. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:- (a) Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 ; (b) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617 ; (c) Natwar Lal and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. RLW 2008 (3) Raj. 2522; and (d) Shivlal Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2009 (2) WLN 535. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel counsel for the accused-respondents, while opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, submits that the learned revisional court, has rightly passed the impugned order whereby the learned court quashed the aforementioned cognizance order of the learned trial court; the same was done by the learned revisional court, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and after considering the entire evidence placed on record before it. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents further submits that the learned revisional court has rightly found that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies rendered by the witnesses produced by the complainant party. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents further submits that the learned revisional court has rightly found that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies rendered by the witnesses produced by the complainant party. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents also submits that with regard to the medical evidence, the learned revisional court, in the impugned order, found that the medical report revealed that as per medical examination conducted on 04.10.2008, the complainant/petitioner sustained only two injuries, although in the complaint he averred that the accused-respondents had beaten him up with a belt and ‘rubber ke patte’ ; furthermore, it was recorded in the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court that even the aforementioned two injuries on the body of the complainant/petitioner, as per the medical opinion, were about a week old, during which time the complainant/petitioner was in jail (until he release on bail on 29.09.2008), and therefore, the cause and perpetrator of such injury could not be appropriately ascertained. 9. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the bar. 10. This Court observes that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court is a detailed and well reasoned speaking order. 11. This Court further observes that the learned revisional court, vide the impugned order, has set aside the order of the learned trial court with the findings, amongst others, that there are material contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies, namely Shri Daulat Ram and Shri Jaspal, regarding the role of the accused-respondents in the incident in question, and that, it was, therefore, not possible to properly and completely ascertain, as to who in fact was the perpetrator of the crime in question, and who was in fact involved in the commission of the said crime. And that, regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant/petitioner, the learned revisional found that the role of the present accused-respondents in causing such injuries is very much doubtful, rather there is no such possibility. 12. And that, regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant/petitioner, the learned revisional found that the role of the present accused-respondents in causing such injuries is very much doubtful, rather there is no such possibility. 12. Furthermore, the learned revisional court, in the impugned order, also recorded a clear and cogent reasoning in regard to the role of the present accused-respondents in causing the injuries to the complainant/petitioner, to the effect that the medical examination, which was conducted on 04.10.2008, clearly revealed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were in fact, a week old (around 29.09.2008), and that since the complainant/petitioner was sent to judicial custody by the competent court on 27.09.2008, whereas the complainant/petitioner was released on bail on 29.09.2008 (the date on which, as per the medical opinion, the complainant/petitioner sustained the aforementioned injuries), and therefore, it was not possible to ascertain exactly as to when the complainant/petitioner sustained the injuries in question whether in custody or while on bail. And that, although in the complaint so filed by the complainant/petitioner, he averred that he was beaten up by the accused-respondents with a belt and ‘rubber ke patte’ and there were two injuries found on his body, as laid out in the medical report. 13. In light of the above made observations, this Court finds the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court to be a detailed and well reasoned speaking order, which has been passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidence placed on record before it. 14. This Court also finds that the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner do not render any assistance to his case. 15. In view of the above, this Court does not find a case to be made out so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 16. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.