Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1405 (RAJ)

Badami Bhil v. State

2022-05-05

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. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.275/2001 has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.08.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.400/98, whereby the respondents No.2 to 7 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them; above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.542/2000 has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.07.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Asind, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.28/96, whereby the respondents No.2 & 3 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 2.1 The prayers made in both the present petitions are to the effect of quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments, and remanding the matter back to the learned trial courts. 3. This Hon’ble Court in the order dated 09.11.2001 has recorded that since the respondent No.7-Laxman in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.275/2001 had passed away, therefore, the proceedings against him shall stand dropped accordingly. 4. As regards Revision Petition No.275/2001, the facts, in bare essentials, are that the petitioner’s husband (original complainant Sukhdev, now deceased) had lodged a written first information before the Police Station Badnore, Bhilwara on 14.04.1997, alleging therein that he was a Sijari of the land of Mandir Shri Thakur Narsing Ji Maharaj Sakin Deh, Patan. It was further alleged that on 14.04.1997, while the deceased complainant went to the field at about 9:00 a.m. for sowing the seeds, the accused-respondents came there and started abusing him with caste-based and other abuses; and also threatened him of dire consequences, if he continue with sowing the seeds in the field. 4.1 On the basis of the aforementioned first information, a case No.30/1997 was registered against the accused-respondents; during the course of investigation, the necessary report from the revenue department was obtained alongwith other relevant documents; after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 447 & 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(V)(x) of the SC/ST Act; the case however, was transferred to the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, owing to the nature of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act. 4.2 The learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2000, acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 from the charges levelled against them; hence, the present Revision Petition No.275/2001 has been preferred by the wife of the complainant, as the original complainant had already expired. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner (original complainant’s wife), in Revision Petition No.275/2001, submits that the revenue report, as produced before the learned trial court clearly shows that the original complainant-Sukhdev (now deceased) was Sijari of the land, entered in the name of the Temple, as above, in the revenue records; the said land was obtained under Sijara from Mahant Ram Krishan, and thus, the original complainant was having the cultivatory rights over the Sijara land, but the accused-respondents unlawfully restrained the original complainant from exercising such cultivatory rights; not only this, the accused-respondents gave beatings to the original complainant, while hurling caste-based abuses against him. Learned counsel further submits that one Shri Ram Krishan Das and two other persons however, came to the rescue of the original complainant. 5.1 Learned counsel also submits that the record clearly reveals that the accused-respondents subjected the original complainant to beatings, encroached upon his agricultural/cultivatory rights and hurled caste-based abuses against him, while knowing very well that he is a member of the scheduled caste community. Learned counsel however, submits that since the original complainant died during the ongoing litigation, therefore, he could not render his evidence; but the written information as submitted by the original complainant was very much part of the record, which was sufficient for holding the accused-respondents guilty for the alleged offences. 5.2 As per learned counsel, however, the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2000, without duly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed before it, acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them, and thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the accused-respondents were entitled for acquittal, mainly on the ground that the original complainant was not produced by the prosecution for rendering his evidence; apart therefrom, none of the prosecution evidence as produced before the learned trial court was sufficient to hold the accused-respondents guilty of the alleged offences. 6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court recorded a categorical finding, while drawing support from the record placed before it, that the present dispute was the outcome of the revenue lis between the parties; further a categorical finding was recorded by the learned trial court that the crucial witnesses, namely Ramchandra Sen and Satyanarayan Sharma clearly stated that they did not know the present accused-respondents by their names. 6.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment, also recorded that the evidence placed on record before it, was clearly insufficient to hold the accused-respondents guilty, amongst others, for creating and becoming part of an unlawful assembly and criminal trespass, and rightly so. Learned counsel further submits that the present criminal proceeding, as launched against the accused-respondents, is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, more particularly, seeking invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, with a clear motive to settle personal scores with the accused-respondents, owing to the revenue lis between the parties. 6.3 Thus, as per learned counsel, the prosecution clearly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts; hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court does not suffer, amongst others, from lack of appreciation of the evidence placed on record before it; that apart, the learned trial court has taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and has also considered each and every aspect material for the purpose of adjudication. 7. As regards Revision Petition No.542/2000, the facts, in brief, are that the petitioner therein lodged a written report before the Police Station Badnore, Bhilwara on 21.01.1996 mentioning therein that he was Mahant and Pujari and Manager of the Land of Mandir Shri Thakur Narsingh Ji Maharaj Sakin Deh, Patan and the said Mandir/Deity holds land bearing khasra No.2097, 2098, 2099, 256, 257, 259, 263, 164, 258, 268, 264, 162, 262, 4342/260 measuring in total 4.10 hectares. 7.1 It was alleged in the report that while on 21.01.1996, the complainant/petitioner went to inspect the crops in the field, the accused-respondents, armed with sticks and stone, unlawfully entered the said field, and thereafter, abused and assaulted the complainant, which act was resisted by one Mangi Nai, who was accompanying the complainant/petitioner, at the relevant time. 7.1 It was alleged in the report that while on 21.01.1996, the complainant/petitioner went to inspect the crops in the field, the accused-respondents, armed with sticks and stone, unlawfully entered the said field, and thereafter, abused and assaulted the complainant, which act was resisted by one Mangi Nai, who was accompanying the complainant/petitioner, at the relevant time. 7.2 On such report, a case No.6/96 was registered against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 447, 352 and 504/34 IPC; after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under the aforementioned offences against the accused-respondents. 7.3 The learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2000, acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them for the reasons recorded in the said judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner in Revision Petition No.542/2000 submits that the complainant/petitioner has placed on record before the learned trial court all the relevant documents, including the revenue records, to show that the land in question was in lawful possession of the Deity, of which the complainant was Mahant/Pujari, and was having the cultivatory rights over such land, which were sought to be disturbed by the alleged unlawful and criminal act of the accused-respondents. 8.1 Learned counsel however, submits that it is immaterial in the present criminal proceedings as to who is the owner of the land and whether there is any lis between the parties in regard thereto, as the present criminal proceeding is independent, more particularly, when the evidence placed on record clearly shows the commission of the alleged offences by the accused-respondents. 8.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has made a reference in the impugned judgment regarding the status quo order passed by this Hon’ble Court, despite the fact that the status quo order does not go in favour of or against any party to the lis; however, the same was given undue weightage by the learned trial court, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents; this is more so when the proceedings in question are criminal proceedings. 9. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, submits that as revealed from the impugned judgment, as per the testimony of PW2 Mangilal, the accused-respondents were cultivating the aforementioned land; complainant-Ram Krishan Das, in his cross-examination, admitted that though the accused-respondents came to the field, with the alleged intention of assaulting the complainant, but due to resistance by Mangilal, no such incident could take place. Thus, as per the learned counsel, in absence of any such incident of assault having taken place, the alleged offence concerned was not made out against the accused respondents. 9.1 Learned counsel further submits that PW-3 Sukhdev has not supported the prosecution story; PW-5 Laxmilal, the then Patwari, also pleaded ignorance about the alleged incident in question. 9.2 Thus, as per learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused-respondents, beyond all reasonable doubts, neither on the strength of the prosecution witnesses, nor by placing any incriminating evidence on record before the learned trial court. Hence, the impugned judgment, which duly dealt with all the evidence on record, coupled with overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, calls for no interference by this Court. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in both the present petitions as well as perused the record of the case, this Court finds, amongst others, that the offences alleged against the present accused-respondents are trivial in nature, and that too, could not be proved against them beyond all reasonable doubts; the learned trial courts have given findings, supported by cogent reasoning, while passing the impugned judgments of acquittal of the accused-respondents, more particularly, that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an outcome of the revenue disputes between the parties; absence of clear testimony of the crucial prosecution witnesses so as to render any support to the prosecution story; no sufficient proof or evidence, particularly the testimony of the original complainant (deceased Sukhdev – in Revision Petition No.275/2001) – may be due to his demise – was placed on record, so as to convince the learned trial courts to hold the present accused-respondents guilty of the alleged offences, including the offence under the SC/ST Act and; prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the present accused respondents, beyond all reasonable doubts. 10.1 Such deficiencies, which are discernible on the face of the record and in the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial courts, are clearly detrimental to the case of the prosecution, more particularly, when no satisfactory explanation therefor was forthcoming before the learned trial courts nor before this Court, so as to persuade this Court to take a different view than the one already taken by the learned trial courts vide the impugned judgments. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned judgments of acquittal passed by the learned trial courts are well reasoned speaking judgments, which do not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.