Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1477 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-03

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Farjand Ali, J. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgement dated 27.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act CAses, Sri Ganganagar in Regular Criminal Case No.8/1994, whereby appellant Banwari Lal has been convicted for the offences under Sections 452 and 323 of the IPC and appellant Makhan Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and they were released on probation under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3, 000/- along with a surety in the like amount. Each of the appellant was further ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- as prosecution expenses and appellant Banwari Lal was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to be provided to the complainant. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that on 02.10.1991 Smt. Uda Devi and Smt. Sugna Devi submitted a report (Ex.P/2) to the SHO, Police Station Raisinghnagar, wherein it was stated that on 01.10.1991 in the night at about 10.00-10.30 p.m. Banwari Lal, Makhan Singh, Bhanwar Lal, Pyare Lal and Ram Lal, who were in intoxicated condition, armed with lathis and gandasis, entered in their house with common intention and scuffled with the ladies to outrage their modesty; torn their clothes and behaved indecently with them. Banwari Lal and Pyare Lal snatched gold ornaments worn by Uda Devi, while Bhanwar Lal snatched gold ornament worn by Sugana Devi. When the ladies made a hue and cry, Om Prakash, Subhash etc. came and, upon which the accused persons fled from the scene leaving behind their sleepers and lathi. They also made assault on the Madan Lal. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.301/1991 for the offences under Sections 452, 379, 354, 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC was registered and the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of incident, prepared spot documents, made recoveries and got the injured medically examined. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.301/1991 for the offences under Sections 452, 379, 354, 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC was registered and the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of incident, prepared spot documents, made recoveries and got the injured medically examined. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against Banwari Lal and Makhan Singh for the offences under Section 452, 354, 323 IPC and section 3 of the SC/ST Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, from where the case was committed and transferred to the trial court. 4. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments on charge, framed charges against appellant Banwari Lal for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (11) of the SC/ST Act and against appellant Makhan for the offence under Section 323, 354 and 452 of the IPC. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 9 witnesses, namely, Madan Lal (P.W.1), Uda Devi (P.W.2), Sugan Devi (P.W.3), Ashi Devi (P.W.4), Subhash Chandra (P.W.5), Dr. S.C. Gupta (P.W.6), Jangir Singh (P.W.7), Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.8) and Abdul Aziz (P.W.9), and exhibited various documents. Upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. Two witnesses Banwari Lal (D.W.1) and Leeluram (D.W.2) were examined in defence. 6. After through appreciation of the evidence placed on record, testimonies of the witnesses and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgement dated 27.08.1994 acquitted the appellant Banwari Lal from the charge under Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act and appellant Makhan Singh from the charges under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC, however, convicted them for the offences mentioned above and granted them the benefit of probation under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 7. To assail the impugned judgement, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. Being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 7. To assail the impugned judgement, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the appellants by producing cogent and unimpeachable evidence. All the alleged eye-witnesses are related to each other and their version is not supported by any independent witness. There are many contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and they have improved or changed the story in their statements on oath. The medical evidence does not corroborate the story set out by the prosecution witnesses. The reason assigned for the alleged offence is unbelievable. On these grounds, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed; the impugned judgement may be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted from the charges. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that the prosecution has proved its case as against the accused by unimpeachable evidence of the eye-witnesses, the Medical evidence and other evidence placed on record and hence, as per him, the trial court was absolutely justified in convicting the appellants by the impugned judgement. There was no reason for the complainant and other witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. Despite convicting the appellants, the learned trial curt has already taken a lenient view by not sending them to jail and granting them the benefit of probation. On basis of these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor implored the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgement. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgement and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 10. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.10.1991 in the night at about 10.00-10.30 p.m., the two appellants and three other persons entered in the house of the complainant in intoxicated condition armed with lathis and gandasis and tried to outrage the modesty of women of the house, i.e. Uda Devi (P.W.2) and Sugana Devi (P.W.3), who belong to Scheduled Caste, and they also assaulted Madan Lal (P.W.1). As per statement of Madan Lal (P.W.1), Banwari Lal was armed with a lathi and Makhan Singh was armed with a gandasi. As per statement of Madan Lal (P.W.1), Banwari Lal was armed with a lathi and Makhan Singh was armed with a gandasi. They first assaulted him and then entered the room of his wife Uda Devi and tore her clothes. Uda Devi (P.W.2) corroborated the story of Mdan Lal. Sugana Devi (P.W.3) also narrated a similarly story and stated that when she reached the room of Uda Devi, the accused also tore her clothes. Ashi Devi (P.W.4), daughter of Mandan Lal, and Subhash (P.W.5), nephew of Madan Lal gave statement on the same lines. Jangir Singh (P.W.7) is an independent witness, who stated that he saw Banwari Lal and Makhan Singh coming out of the house of the complainant at 09-10 o'clock in the night of incident. Based on the statements of the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6, which find further corroboration from the testimony of independent witnesses Jangir Singh (P.W.7), the learned trial court came to the conclusion that in the night of the incident, the appellants trespassed into the house of the complainant armed with lathis and gandasis, thus, the offence under Section 452 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Madan Singh (P.W.1) stated that Banwari Lal caused him blows by lathi on hips and Makhan Singh caused injury on his right leg, but since Dr. S.C. Gupta (P.W.6), in the injury report (Ex.P/6) noticed only two injuries on the person of Madan Lal, which were on hips, appellant Makhan Singh was acquitted from the charge under Section 323 and only appellant Banwari Lal was found guilty of said offence. 12. So far as the offence under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, the learned trial court did not find the evidence available on record sufficient to convict the appellants for the said offence. 13. Upon re-appreciation of evidence and thoughtful consideration, this court is of the opinion that though there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, but a careful scrutiny of the same does not give rise to any suspicion over their truthfulness specially when the same is further corroborated by other material available on record. In the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and unimpeachable evidence. In the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and unimpeachable evidence. The learned trial court has prudently discussed the entire evidence in detail and based upon thorough appreciation of the same has reached to the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. Further, even after convicting the appellant, a lenient view has been taken and instead of sentencing them to suffer imprisonment, benefit of probation has been given to them. I find no error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgement of conviction and order of probation, which may call for interference in this appeal. 14. Accordingly, the impugned judgement dated 27.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act CAses, Sri Ganganagar in Regular Criminal Case No.8/1994 is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. 15. The record be sent back to the trial court.