Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 889 (RAJ)

Abhishek v. State of Rajasthan

2024-06-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2024
ORDER : (Sameer Jain, J.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants were arrested in connection with FIR No. 168/2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 IPC and 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted as under:- 2.1 That the FIR was registered with a delay i.e. three days after the date of the incident. In this regard, it was averred that the FIR was registered on 29.06.2023 whereas the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 27.06.2023. 2.2 That the accused-appellants are young boys/students aged 20 and 23 years, with no criminal antecedents, who have been falsely implicated in the offence as alleged. In this regard, it was averred that the accused-appellants are merely employees of the lease holder of the unit. 2.3 That cross-FIRs have been filed in the instant matter. 2.4 That the deceased was a habitual offender insofar as theft and clandestine removal of bajri/sand was concerned. 2.5 That the postmortem report coupled with the medical opinion and statements recorded of the concerned doctor reflects that the cause of death was not physical injuries and/or a physical altercation. Rather, the cause of death was blockage in the food pipe of the deceased. In this regard, it was averred that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, which inadvertently resulted into vomit and blockage in the food pipe. 2.6 That all the injuries, as reflected on record, are simple in nature. Moreover, the FSL report does not support the story of the prosecution. 2.7 That the accused-appellants are young students who have been in judicial custody for almost one year. 3. Placing cumulative reliance upon the aforesaid, learned counsel for the accused-appellants prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the accused-appellants be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and complainant, submitted as under:- 4.1 That the deceased belongs to the SC/ST community, being from a very humble and poor background. 4.2 That the delay in registering the FIR was on account of efforts on part of the accused-appellants in arriving at a compromise with the relatives of the deceased with the incentive of a monetary gratification. 4.2 That the delay in registering the FIR was on account of efforts on part of the accused-appellants in arriving at a compromise with the relatives of the deceased with the incentive of a monetary gratification. Moreover, there was no co-operation by the State and police authorities in registering said FIR. 4.3 That in the purely identical set of facts and circumstances, arising out of the same FIR, this Court in the case of the co-accused has rejected their appeals vide order dated 21.11.2023 in SBCRA No. 2922/2023. Against said rejection order dated 21.11.2023, a SLP was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex by the accused-appellants, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2023. 4.4 That the postmortem at Serial No. A has exhibited injury in the neck of the deceased, which is fatal/grievous in nature and the same was not considered by the medical officer and rather, a contradictory report was given, on account of the latter being under the undue influence of the sand mafia/lease holder. 4.5 That there is a recovery of a lathi and blunt weapon from the accused-appellant, which coupled with the 14 injuries in total including the said grievous injury on the neck, goes on to show that the deceased was beaten to death. 4.6 That charge-sheet has been filed wherein certain persons are noted to be absconding and therefore, the same has been kept open under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 4.7 That in the facts of the instant matter, the FIR was only registered on account of protest by the jurisdictional MLA and MP, on account of wide spread public outrage. Moreover, it was only after said public protests, the investigation/matter was shifted to the CID-CB. 4.8 That despite the investigation/matter being shifted to the CID-CB, the cross-FIRs have not been linked and they are being investigated parallely, which is dehors the settled position of law. 4.9 That the undue influence of the sand mafia/lease holder is exhibited by the delay in registering of FIR, consequent commencement of investigation with a delay, FSL manipulation and non-maintenance of roznamcha. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that in spite of categoric directions as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1, no police complaint authority is appointed/constituted. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that in spite of categoric directions as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1, no police complaint authority is appointed/constituted. It was averred that the complainant/deceased are from the SC/ST community, belonging to a humble background, who have been deprived of adequate resources to take the proper legal recourse. Learned counsel, only on account of being an officer of the court, is representing in the present matter. 6. Considering the arguments advanced, and especially upon hearing the respective sides, including the AAG for the State and Investigating Officer who is appearing for CID (CB) in FIR No.168/2023, this court observes as under:- (i) That the deceased belonged to the SC/ST community, who was from a poor and humble background. (ii) That the date of incidence as alleged is stated to be 27.06.2023 at 10:00PM, whereas the FIR was registered on 29.06.2023, that too after the intervention of the local politicians and wide spread public outrage. (iii) That the learned AAG argued that despite the aforesaid, the police were duly informed of the alleged incident on the date of the incident itself, which is however, not reflected in the roznamcha. (iv) That the cross-FIR was registered on 01.07.2023; however, the same was not transferred to CID(CB) along with the connected matter, and rather was investigated separately. (v) That qua the owners/lease holders of the sand mafia, with whom the accused-appellants were employed, the investigation is still kept open despite the lapse of a considerable period of time. On this aspect, upon a query being raised by the Court, no explanation was put forth by the State. (vi) That the medical report dated 30.06.2023 reflects that injury-A on the neck of the deceased was grievous in nature and yet the medical officer has furnished a contradictory opinion stating that the cause of death is congestion in the food pipe, on account of the intoxication of the deceased to the extent of 92%. (vii) That samples qua the medical report were obtained after the lapse of a period of 3 days, which casts a shadow of doubt on the said intoxication report/finding. (vii) That samples qua the medical report were obtained after the lapse of a period of 3 days, which casts a shadow of doubt on the said intoxication report/finding. (viii) That in the purely identical set of facts and circumstances, arising out of the same FIR, this Court in the case of the co-accused has rejected their appeals vide order dated 21.11.2023 in SBCRA No. 2922/2023. Against said rejection order dated 21.11.2023, a SLP was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex by the accused-appellants, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2023. 7. At this juncture, it is noted that the complainant belongs to the SC/ST community, who does not have sufficient means to take proper legal recourse and contest the matter before the Court. Correspondingly, it is analyzed that despite the clear dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Prakash Singh (Supra), no police complaints authority has been formulated by the State, directions qua which were given over 18 years ago. Therefore, inadvertently, in the instant matter, no complaint was registered or filed at the instance of the ST community by the State authorities. 8. Therefore, in cumulative light of the aforesaid peculiarities, this Court deems it appropriate to defer the final adjudication of the present appeal and list the matter for further consideration and/or arguments on 04.07.2024. 9. In the meantime, following directions be carried out:- 9.1 Registrar (Judicial) is directed to refer the instant matter of the deceased/complainant to the National Commission for Schedule Tribes created under Article 338 of the Constitution of India so that appropriate representation and/or defence is provided to the complainant. 9.2 That additionally, the Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to refer the matter to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to offer all possible defence/representation to the deceased. 9.3 That the State Authorities/Police is directed to bring on record the roznamcha of the date of incidence as well as the reason that why till date, Section 173(8) supplementary charge-sheet is not filed. Moreover, as to why the matter of the connected FIR No.170/2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, was not transferred to the CID(CB). 10. Moreover, on the next date, the Medical Authorities/Officers are directed to remain present in the Court to explain the noted contradictions between the medical report and opinion furnished by the medical officer. 11. Moreover, as to why the matter of the connected FIR No.170/2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, was not transferred to the CID(CB). 10. Moreover, on the next date, the Medical Authorities/Officers are directed to remain present in the Court to explain the noted contradictions between the medical report and opinion furnished by the medical officer. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to send a copy of this order to the ACS (Home) for furnishing due explanation/report regarding the present status of investigation and also, as to why despite the categoric directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court enunciated in Prakash Singh (Supra), no police complaints authority is formulated till date. Moreover, when the said directions were also re-iterated and re-emphasized by the Division Bench of this Court as recently as on 29.03.2023, in State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Salman: D.B. Cr.LDR No.01/2020. 12. The aforesaid explanation/report be furnished by the ACS (Home) prior to the next date. 13. List for further consideration on 04.07.2024.