Krishan vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 17948 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 796/2018

1. Krishan s/o Ramkaran, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Karnisar, Police Station Sadar, District Hanumangarh.

2. Patram s/o Sahabram, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Dudhwali Dhani, Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.

----Appellants Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through PP

2. Indraj s/o Hariram b/c Nayak, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Dudhwali Dhani, Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. K.D. Singh
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Rakesh Matoria for respondent
                                 no.2
                                 Mr. Laxman Solanki, Public Prosecutor



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                  Judgment

29 November, 2021

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amended) Act

assailing the order dated 20.7.2018, whereby learned Special

Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Hanumangarh

rejected the Final Report submitted in respect of FIR No.555/2016

registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District

Hanumangarh and took cognizance of offences under Sections

3(2)(5A), 3(1)(A), 3(1)(R) & (S) of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein

afterwards referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') against the appellants.

(2 of 3) [CRLAS-796/2018]

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

there is no evidence on record to corroborate the statement of the

complainant Indraj. Vinod, Sandeep and Hetram have not

supported the prosecution story. Superficial injuries were found on

the face of the complainant. As per statement of Kulwant Singh,

the complainant Indraj came to his house in the day hours. There

are material contradictions in the statement of Kulwant Singh and

the complainant. Hence, the learned trial court has committed

illegality in not accepting the Final Report submitted by the police

and taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 342, 323

IPC and Sections 3(2)(5A), 3(1)(A), 3(1)(R) & (S) of the SC/ST

Act. Learned counsel has prayed to quash and set aside the

impugned order.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

has submitted that there are, prima facie, evidence available on

record for taking cognizance against the appellants. The statement

of the complainant has been corroborated by medical evidence as

also by statement of Kulwant and others to some extent. Hence,

the learned counsel has prayed to reject this appeal.

Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned

counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is evident

that the complainant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

categorically alleged the commission of offence by the appellants.

From the record also, it is revealed that at the time of commission

of offence, no other person was present. However, while returning

to home, in injured condition, the complainant narrated the story

to one Kulwant, who also corroborated the version of the

(3 of 3) [CRLAS-796/2018]

complainant in his police statement. Injury report also

corroborates the statement of the complainant. Investigating

Officer, in this case, recorded the police statement of the accused

persons and other interest persons, which is not correct approach

on the part of the investigating officer. It is relevant to mention

here that the victim/complainant is the member of Scheduled

Castes, who was working as labour in the field of appellants. From

the record, it is also revealed that the complainant was not

interested to go to the fields at work. There was dispute between

the parties with regard to money also, which may be a motive for

committing the offence.

Learned trial court passed the impugned order after

taking into consideration all relevant material available on record,

which does not calls for any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merits

is dismissed.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

50-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)