Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 145 (RAJ)

Pappu Lal @ Veerbhan v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-19

FARJAND ALI

body2024
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing of instant appeals under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellants Pappu Lal @ Veerbhan, Surresh Gochar and Narendra Singh. The requisite details of the matters are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 252/2021 2. Concerned Police Station Sulatanpur 3. District Kota (Rural) 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 323 , 341 , 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(r)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act 5. Offences added, if any Sections 302 , 450 , 427 , 147 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned order (CrlAS No.130/2023) 09.11.2023 6a. Date of passing of impugned order (CrlAS No.2131/2023 11.10.2022 2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt.Anookh Bai, who was admitted in emergency ward of MBS Hospital, Kota submitted a parcha bayan before Shri Shivraj Singh, ASI, Police Station Sultanpur alleging therein that on 27.09.2021 at around 9:00, she was at home and her husband Rajendra had gone for work and after working hours when he was returning towards home at that time, Pappu Lal @ Veerbhan stopped his motorcycle, as he was intoxicated, therefore, without making any protest, he rushed towards his house. It was alleged that whereafter the appellants along with other persons namely Suresh Gurjar, Naresh Gurjar came to her house and they thrashed up them. Upon which FIR No.252/2021 got registered at the Police Station Sultanpur, Kota and investigation commenced. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that the co-accused Purshottam @ Bunti and Mukut Bihari and Latooralal have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.01.2022 and 16.03.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) Nos.113/2022 & 37/2022 and the case of present appellants are at par with them, therefore, they may also be granted same relief. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. During investigation, the two minor daughters of deceased namely Arushi aged 11 years and Priyanka aged 14 years were examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate wherein though they reiterated the allegations as levelled in the FIR but with modifications. 7. Rajendra, who happens to be the husband of the deceased was also examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he narrated the same story with some modifications by alleging that after returning back home from work, he told the entire story to his wife and mother and then irked by the action of the accused, her mother and wife rebuked the accused resulting which the assault was made. 8. The statement of the Shri Shivraj Singh, Assistant Sub- Inspector posted at Police Station Sultanpur, Kota cannot be ignored at this stage. He stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on the fateful day of the incident, he received a call from one Purushottam Gurjar upon which, he reached at the spot and saw a huge rally of 20-25 persons present at the spot, who informed him that Rajendra was in habit of consuming liquor regularly and under the influence of intoxication, he behaves obnoxiously towards the females of the village; at the time of incident he noticed that Anookh Bai W/o Rajendra was beaten by the accused persons. The MLC report of Rajendra reflecting that he received two lacerated wounds on his hand whereas, the MLC report of Anookh Bai prepared by Medical Jurist dated 27.09.2021 revealing a swelling on dorsal aspect of her hand and she was complaining of pain in her chest and abdomen. The nature of injury had been kept reserved and after radiological examination, the injury No.1 was opined to be simple in nature. 9. After carefully going through the statements of prosecution witnesses and the interrogation note of the accused it is revealed that the husband of the deceased Anookh Bai was habitual drinker and whereafter he used to cause affray. The nature of injury had been kept reserved and after radiological examination, the injury No.1 was opined to be simple in nature. 9. After carefully going through the statements of prosecution witnesses and the interrogation note of the accused it is revealed that the husband of the deceased Anookh Bai was habitual drinker and whereafter he used to cause affray. It is also revealing that on the fateful day of incident, Rajendra, the husband of the deceased was under intoxication and he bashed up some villagers upon which some of the villagers, including the appellants went to his house for conciliation and not to cause affray. Suddenly, his wife (deceased) came out of the house and started hurling to the villagers and in that scuffle, she received some injuries. The cause of death shown in the postmortem report would be the abdominal injury however, only one faint bruise was noticed by the Medical Officer on the hypochondrium region. 10. In this complex factual situation and the fact that the appellants are behind the bars since August 2021 and it is not comprehensible as to who were responsible for the fatal injury to the deceased as well as noticing the fact that 35 witnesses have been projected by the prosecution, out of which only few have been examined till date. Further, the co-accused Purshottam @ Bunti and Mukut Bihari and Latooralal have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.01.2022 and 16.03.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) Nos.113/2022 & 37/2022 and the trial would still take a long time to conclude, therefore, on the ground of parity, keeping the appellants behind the bar would not be justifiable. 11. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 12. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 09.01.2023 & 11.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota is set aside. 12. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 09.01.2023 & 11.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants- Pappu Lal @ Veerbhan S/o Ratan Lal, Suresh Gochar S/o Shri Latoorlal and Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Mukutbihari arrested in connection with FIR No.252/2021, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.