Sawai Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:23853)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sawai Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:23853) on 24 May, 2024

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:23853]                   (1 of 5)                     [CRLMP-4189/2021]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4189/2021

1.       Sawai Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/
         o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
         Rural Barmer, Barmer.
2.       Narayan Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
         R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
         Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
3.       Ran Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
         Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
         Rural Barmer, Barmer.
4.       Kump Singh S/o Shri Bindraj Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
         R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
         Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
5.       Shaitan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
         R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
         Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
6.       Mohan Singh S/o Kump Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
         Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
         Rural Barmer, Barmer.
7.       Chhug Singh S/o Kump Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
         Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
         Rural Barmer, Barmer.
8.       Than Singh S/o Shri Kump Singh, Aged About 21 Years,
         R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
         Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
9.       Mishar Singh S/o Bhair Singh, Aged About 77 Years, R/o
         Village And Post Bhalikhal, Tehsil Gudamalani, District
         Barmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State, Through Pp
2.       Jamta Ram S/o Shri Rukhba Ram, B/c Bheel, R/o Tejwo Ki
         Dhani, Village Vishala, District Barmer.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shrawan Kumar, PP
                                Mr. Kaushik Dave
                                Mr. Vineet Dave



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:08 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23853] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021] 24/05/2024 By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioners that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and record of the case may kindly be called for and the FIR No.94 dated 17.07.2021 lodged at Police Station Barmer Rural, Barmer for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r,), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act by the respondent no.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR clearly indicates that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague, having no basis and there is nothing available on record of the case to show that the petitioners had any motive to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel further contended that there is a version and a cross-version of the alleged incident which had taken place on 16.07.2021 and therefore, the petitioners have also filed an FIR having registration No.93/2021 against the complainant party.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the alleged incident had taken place at the time when the complainant party were trying to encroach upon the land in dispute between the parties along with a public way situated nearby to the Khatedari land belonging to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence available on record to establish that the petitioners have used casteist slurs/derogatory (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:08 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23853] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021] words against the complainant within public view. With these submissions, learned counsel thus prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No.94/2021, registered at Police Station Barmer Rural, Barmer.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following judgments as precedents in support of his arguments:-

(i) Manjindra Singh S/o Shri Nakshatra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1225/2020, Decided on 19.04.2023.

(ii) Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand And Anr.: Criminal Appeal No.707/2020, Decided on 05.11.2020.

Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant argued that the Investigating Agency after conducting a thorough investigation in the matter have found, the offences alleged against the petitioners to be sufficiently proved. Learned counsel submitted that in the alleged incident which took place on 16.06.2017, the petitioners have inflicted injuries upon Madan, Parul Devi and Prabhuram with sharp weapons. The factual report dated 24.05.2024 furnished by learned Public Prosecutor is taken or record.

Learned counsel submitted that the allegation of using casteist words in a derogatory manner, levelled against petitioners has also been found to be correct. Learned counsel thus submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

This Court has heard considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the record.

(Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:08 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23853] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021] In the present case, there are allegations against the present petitioners that on 16.07.2021, they unauthorizedly entered the field of the complainant party with sharp weapons and inflicted injuries upon Madan, Parul Devi, Prabhuram, Charnaram and Hakimaram etc., in a pre-determined manner. One of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners upon the complainant party is dangerous to life. There are clear allegations against the petitioners that they uttered casteist words in a derogatory manner against the complainant party, knowing fully well that they belonged to scheduled tribe.

Relevant portion of section 3(1) of SC/ST Act, 1989, reads as under:-

"Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

(a) to (q) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [not relevant to this case]

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Schedules Cast or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view."

The key ingredient of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989 would be the intentional insult or intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "in any place within public view". Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the judgment rendered in the case of Swarna Singh and Ors. Vs. State through standing counsel and Ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 held that if an offence is committed outside the building i.e. in a lawn outside a house, (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:08 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23853] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021] and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then, it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view.

As per the impugned FIR, the casteist remarks/abuses were used against the complainant party in an open field (Khasra No.779/675) which could have been seen by anyone.

In the opinion of this Court, an offence has thus been committed at a place within public view and merely because the place of incident was a privately owned place, that would not mean that the same will not come within the expression "place within public view".

In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 341, 354 and 307 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) are prima facie made out against the present petitioners.

Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., is dismissed.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 279-TarunGoyal/-

(Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)