Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2008 (RAJ)

Roopa Ram v. Joga Ram

2022-07-12

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "Hence it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that the order of the Trial Court may be set aside and the Trial Court may be directed to frame the charges against the non-petitioner u/S 143, 458, 427, 323 I.P.C. & u/S.3 of the SC/ST Act and in any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant." 2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A) (1) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the order dated 17.05.2017 of the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sirohi whereby the application, under Section 216 Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant, in Criminal Case No. 22/2015, relating to F.I.R. No. 169/2014 at Police Station Sheoganj, Sirohi, was rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that an F.I.R., bearing F.I.R. No. 169/2014 was lodged by the complainant-appellant Roopa Ram, stating therein that on the night of 27.07.2014, when he and his family members were asleep, at about 11:00 p.m., the private respondents entered his house with lathis, stones, and other weapons and began to beat him and his family members, and hurled casteist abuses at them, and damaged articles in his house. And that, the appellant subsequently lodged the said F.I.R. in which the respondents were charges for the offences under Sections 143, 458, 323, 427 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, upon completion of the investigation, the concerned investigation officer filed charges against the privaet respondents for the offences under Sections 143,323,427 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocties) Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that despite it being within the knowledge of the investigation officer that the allegations against the private respondents reveal that they committed house trespass during the nighttime, after which they insulted the appellant and his family with casteist slurs, and physically assaulted them. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that despite it being within the knowledge of the investigation officer that the allegations against the private respondents reveal that they committed house trespass during the nighttime, after which they insulted the appellant and his family with casteist slurs, and physically assaulted them. And that these allegations were corroborated by the testimonies of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, being the appellant himself, each of whom stated that the private respondents broke into their residence during nighttime. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Court below erred in rejecting the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. made by the appellant, seeking an amendment in the chargesheet so filed against the private respondents by the concerned police authorities, seeking an addition to the existing charges, of the charge for the offence under Section 458 I.P.C. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, and submits that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the Section 216 Cr.P.C. application of the appellant after looking into the fact that upon completion of the investigation by the concerned investigating officer, it was found that the incident in question occurred outside the home of the appellant, and therefore the application of Section 458 I.P.C. is not made out against the private respondents. Similarly, as averred by the appellant, the charge for the offence under Section 427 I.P.C. was also not made out against the accused private respondents, upon investigation. 7. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order, dated, 17.05.2017, is a well reasoned and speaking order. 9. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court looks to testimony of P.W. 11, the investigating officer Tagaram, found that the incident in question did not occur within the house of the appellant Roopa Ram, as alleged by him, but in fact took place outside his residence, neither were the appellants arms with lathis, sariyas or any other weapons, as averred by the appellants in the F.I.R. so lodged by him. Neither was it found, during the investigation, that the articles in the appellant’s home were scattered, as claimed by him. Neither was it found, during the investigation, that the articles in the appellant’s home were scattered, as claimed by him. This was corroborated by evidences placed on the record, namely photographs and the site report. 10. And that, in light of the same, the said investigating officer filed the charge sheet for the offences as mentioned hereinabove, but it did not include the charges for the offences under the Sections 427 and 458 I.P.C. 11. This Court observes that the learned Court below has rightly disposed of the Section 216 Cr.P.C. application of the appellant Roopa Ram, and therefore no cause for interference by this Court is made out to that extent. 12. However, this Court observes that the reasoning employed in doing so by the learned Court is not wholly correct, as for one of the reasons for rejection of the Section 216 Cr.P.C. application, it has recorded that the said application was moved by the appellant after 11 witnesses had been deposed, and that at such a stage the application could not be entertained. This reasoning is flawed, as on a plain reading of Section 216 Cr.P.C. it is clear that such an application for alteration of charge can be moved at any stage before the Judgment is pronounced by the concerned Court. 13. This Court therefore observes that the impugned order does not suffer from any other legal infirmity and is therefore, affirmed and upheld. 14. Resultantly, this appeal does not succeed, and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all pending applications, if any, are disposed of.