Lala Ram vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 5115 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 339/1993

Lala Ram

----Appellant Versus State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

06/04/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) IPC has been

preferred against the order dated 30.08.1993 passed by learned

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District

& Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case (SC/ST) No.54/1992,

whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence

under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and

was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment,

alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to

undergo further two months simple imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that

complainant-Gordhan Ram filed a complaint before the learned

Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in relation to an incident

(2 of 6) [CRLA-339/1993]

alleged to have been occurred on 13.09.1990 at about 6:00 p.m.,

narrating therein that while the complainant was taking water

from the pot kept in the hotel of the accused, the accused-

appellant hurled caste based abuses against the complainant and

drove him out of the hotel; the said complaint was filed on the

next date, and not on the very same day.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits

that the said complaint was sent for investigation under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon after due investigation, the police filed

a negative final report. Learned counsel however, submits that

against the said negative final report, the complainant filed a

protest petition, whereupon the learned Magistrate took

cognizance against the accused-appellant for the offence under

Sections 323 & 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the matter was committed to the

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,

(Sessions Judge), Balotra.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submits that

after committal of the case, the learned trial court framed charge

against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)

(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel

further submits that thereafter vide the impugned judgment, the

learned trial court, without appreciating the fact that the

evidences as placed before the learned court were not only

insufficient for framing of the charge, but also for the purpose of

convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, as above; this is

more so when no independent witness was produced and

examined by the learned trial court.

(3 of 6) [CRLA-339/1993]

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant harped upon the

inconsistency between the statement rendered by PW-1 Gordhan

Ram (complainant) and that of PW-3 Narayan & PW-4 Chain

Singh. Learned counsel submits that the complainant in his

statement has deposed that Narayan and Chain Singh were

present in the hotel of the accused when the alleged incident took

place and came to the rescue of the complainant at the relevant

time; whereas Narayan and Chain Singh in their statement made

a deposition that at the relevant time, they were sitting in the

hotel of one Karnsingh, which was located near the hotel of the

present accused-appellant. Learned counsel further submits that

the said Narayan has even discarded his statement given before

the police.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submits that

the complainant in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. stated

that during the alleged incident, the accused-appellant had asked

about his identity, whereas in his cross-examination as PW-1, the

complainant deposed that he knows the accused for last ten

years; and if it is so, it is highly doubtful that the accused would

have asked the complainant about his identity. Learned counsel

further submits that since other persons were also taking water

from the pot kept in the hotel of the accused without disclosing

their respective identity, particularly, on the askance of the

accused, therefore, it is highly improbable that the accused would

have asked about the identity of the complainant only, more

specifically to hurl caste based abuses against him, as alleged,

while the complainant was taking water from the pot.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also harped upon

the unexplained delay in filing the complaint by the complainant

(4 of 6) [CRLA-339/1993]

before the learned Magistrate, while submitting that despite the

complainant being resident of Barmer itself, no reason is

forthcoming as to why he did not file the complaint before the

police station at Barmer on the same day, instead of filing the

complainant before the learned Magistrate belatedly.

9. Thus, as per learned counsel, the aforementioned backdrop

clearly reflects various inconsistencies between the statements of

the prosecution witnesses and that of the complainant. The same

clearly shows that the criminal proceedings were launched against

the present accused-appellant just to settle personal scores, while

abusing the process of law, that too under the provisions of the

SC/ST Act.

10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant therefore, submits

that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-

appellant by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment is

unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same lacks, amongst

others, appreciation of the evidence available on record, for the

purpose of charging and convicting the accused-appellant for the

offence under the SC/ST Act, in particular. Learned counsel lastly

submits that even if it is assumed that the accused-appellant is

not entitled for honorable acquittal, but in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, more particularly, in view of the

material consistencies in the depositions made by the prosecution

witnesses and the complainant himself, the benefit of doubt

deserves to be extended to the present accused-appellant.

11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing

the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-

appellant, submits that the alleged delay in filing the complaint

was appropriately dealt with by the learned trial court while

(5 of 6) [CRLA-339/1993]

finding that there is no delay in filing such complaint, which can be

said to be detrimental to the case of the prosecution.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the

contention on behalf of the accused-appellant regarding

inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and

the complainant, have not been found to be proved before the

learned trial court, and rightly so, particularly for invocation of the

provisions of the SC/ST Act. Thus, as per learned Public

Prosecutor, the learned trial court has duly appreciated the

evidence placed before it, before passing the impugned judgment

of conviction and sentence against the present accused-appellant,

with a finding that the prosecution was able to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that even if the

delay in filing the complaint is ignored, then also, the

inconsistencies, even if minor, are discernible on the face of the

record.

14. This Court is also conscious of the stringent provisions

contained in the SC/ST Act and the legislative intent behind the

said enactment. However, this Court finds that the record of the

case, including the statements of the witnesses and the

complainant, clearly speaks of contradictions between them. It is

settled law that the contradictions even if minor cannot be put into

action to convict and sentence any person for the concerned

offence; even if there is an iota of minor consistency, the benefit

of doubt, as per law, is required to be extended to the accused

person concerned.

(6 of 6) [CRLA-339/1993]

15. This Court is further conscious of the fact that the sentence

awarded by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment

dated 30.08.1993 for the conviction in question is six months

rigorous imprisonment; such sentence was however, suspended by

this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.09.1993 in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Bail/Suspension of Sentence Petition No.335/1993.

16. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present

case, this Court finds it a fit case for acquittal of the present

accused-appellant, by extending him the benefit of doubt.

17. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed, while extending

the benefit of doubt to the present accused-appellant. Accordingly,

the conviction of the appellant as recorded vide the impugned

judgment dated 30.08.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District & Sessions

Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case (SC/ST) No.54/1992 is quashed

and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled

against him, while giving him the benefit of doubt. The appellant

is on bail; he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged

accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

37-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)