Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1893 (RAJ)

Mena Devi v. Mula Ram

2022-06-29

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore prayed that revision petition so filed on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff may kindly be allowed and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ratangarh district Churu dated 25-9-2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and same be declared illegal and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dungargarh dated 18-10-2000 may kindly be ordered to be restored looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Moola Ram may kindly be punished and convicted for the offence under Section 454 and 354 I.P.C. and he be awarded sentence." 2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner are that on 03.07.1999, at about 07:15 p.m., the complainant-petitioner Mena Devi lodged a written report at Police Station Sandwa with the allegation that on 02.07.1999 at 06:30 p.m. while her husband was not at home, Moola Ram, Respondent no. 1, molested her and attempted to sexually assault her. That upon lodging of said report, the S.H.O. Police Station Sandwa registered an F.I.R. and filed the chargesheet under Sections 454 and 354 I.P.C. against Moola Ram. Subsequently, charges were framed against him by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sri. Dungargarh, and after trial, vide judgment dated 18.10.2000, the Court found Moola Ram guilty, thereby convicted him for the offences under Sections 454 and 354 I.P.C. and awarded him a sentence of 3 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo a sentence of 6 months, and 2 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo an imprisonment of 1 month, respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. However, on an appeal filed by Moola Ram, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ratangarh District Churu, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002, acquitted him of the aforementioned charges and set aside the conviction. 3. Both sentences were to run concurrently. However, on an appeal filed by Moola Ram, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ratangarh District Churu, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002, acquitted him of the aforementioned charges and set aside the conviction. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment dated 18.10.2000 after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidences placed on the record before it, and that the learned Appellate Court has grossly erred in overturning the conviction of Moola Ram. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002 passed by the learned Appellate Court suffers from non application of mind, as there was clear evidence available, in the form of eye witness testimony, corroborating the version of the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner also submits that although the State did not prefer an appeal against the acquittal of Respondent No. 1, Moola Ram, the complainant, being the revisionist-petitioner, seeks to overturn the acquittal of Moola Ram, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in A.I.R. 2000 (SC) 3418 and the judgment of this Court reported in Cr.LR. Page 860 in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Rajasthan. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner also submits that there was delay in filing of the F.I.R., which has been adequately explained and rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Court, being that the F.I.R. was lodged after father-in-law of the revisionist petitioner (the complainant), returned home and that she could not go alone to the Police Station. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court rightly observed that Moola Ram is habitual offender, and that he was also once granted the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in a previous case under Section 457 I.P.C., and that the Court in this case and the previous case was one and the same, and therefore the learned Trial Court has rightly taken into due consideration the case of the prosecution and the evidences on record before it, in convicting the respondent no. 1, Moola Ram, vide the judgment dated 18.10.2000. 8. 1, Moola Ram, vide the judgment dated 18.10.2000. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent (Moola Ram) submits that the learned Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment overturning his conviction. 9. Learned counsel for the private respondent further submits that the learned Appellate Court rightly found that the case lodged by the revisionist-petitioner was a counter-blast to the F.I.R. lodged by Moola Ram against the revisionist-petitioner's husband, (Muni Ram) and Kaluram on 03.07.1999 at about 05:00 a.m. (in connection with an incident which occurred on 02.07.1999 at about 06:30 p.m.), after which they were charge-sheeted and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dungargarh found them to be guilty but granted them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vide judgment dated 31.08.2000. 10. Learned counsel for the private respondent further submits that although an explanation for the delay in filing of the F.I.R. was offered, the learned Appellate Court rightly found it to be without substance. 11. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case. 12. This Court observes that the learned Appellate Court has rightly overturned the conviction of Moola Ram, vide judgment dated 25.09.2002 after finding that there was an unexplained delay of 25 hours in filing the F.I.R. 13. This Court further observes that the complaint seems to be a counter-blast of the case lodged by the non petitioner, Moola Ram against the revisionist-petitioner's husband, as the F.I.R., lodged by the revisionist-petitioner against the private respondent, was lodged on 03.07.1999 at about 07:15 p.m., while the non petitioner i.e. private respondent, Moola Ram lodged the F.I.R. against the revisionist-petitioner's husband on 03.07.1999 at about 05:00 a.m. Furthermore, it is the allegation of the revisionist-petitioner that on 02.07.1999 at about 06:30 p.m. Moola Ram allegedly assaulted her and attempted to sexually assault her, while the concerned Court below, after trial in consequence of the F.I.R. filed by Moola Ram, found in his favour and found the revisionist-petitioner's husband and others along with him guilty of the charges, but thought it fit to grant them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the said case, the Court found that the incident occurred on the evening of 02.07.1999, around the same time, as claimed by the present revisionist-petitioner that Moola Ram entered her house and went on to commit the alleged acts, as discussed hereinabove. 13.1. In the said case, the Court found that the incident occurred on the evening of 02.07.1999, around the same time, as claimed by the present revisionist-petitioner that Moola Ram entered her house and went on to commit the alleged acts, as discussed hereinabove. 13.1. The learned Appellate Court has thus, rightly found that it is physically impossible for one person to remain present at two places at the same time, and therefore, disbelieved the different version of the prosecution in the present case. And that the allegations made by the revisionist-petitioner, along with the explanation for the delay in filing F.I.R. have also been rightly found by the learned Appellate Court to be baseless and highly improbable. 13.2. Furthermore, the testimony of key witness, P.W. 3 Hari Ram did not support the version as put forth by the complainant, and suffer from contradictions and inconsistencies and therefore does not render any assistance to the case of the prosecution, as rightly held by the learned Appellate Court. 14. This Court, after a thorough perusal of the record, finds that the judgment, dated 25.09.2002, was passed by the learned Appellate Court after a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence on record, and therefore the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. 15. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned Court below be sent back forthwith.