Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagirath vs State on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLA-420/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 420/1993
Bhagirath
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh, Pro Bono
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
11/04/2022
In 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 Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C., has been
preferred claiming for the following reliefs:-
"Under the circumstances it is respectfully prayed that the appeal
be very kindly be accepted and the judgment of the Special Court,
Pratapgarh convicting the appellant for offences under Section 3(i)
(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 354 and 451 IPC and
sentencing the appellant for the same be kindly set aside and the
appellant be kindly ordered to be acquitted."
The allegations are that on 29.06.1922 at about 5.30 pm an
FIR was lodged by the complainant Hurji at P.S. Arnod,
Pratapgarh, stating therein that at about 8 pm the appellant
(Downloaded on 16/04/2022 at 08:32:56 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-420/1993]
Bhagirath armed with a 'lathi' entered her house, while
intoxicated, and sexually assaulted her.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the allegations are
per se concocted because the complainant was never at the site,
nor did he witness the occurrence of the incident in-question.
Counsel for the appellant emphasised upon the statement of
Kalla (PW-1), in which, the victim deposed that the allegations
made in the FIR were made as per the lawyer's advice, that in
case she gives a doctored statement, and that then they will then
be able to involve the accused in the crime in-question. Counsel
for the appellant submits that deposition by the main
sufferer/victim, thus, creates suspicion in the entire prosecution
story.
Learned Pubic Prosecutor opposes.
This Court after perusing through the statement of Kalla
(PW-1) is of the opinion that the doubt seeded upon her
statement, which reflects to have been rendered on the advice of
the lawyer in a particular fashion and, thus, does not induce
confidence of this Court to sustain conviction of accused, as the
case at hand has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In light of the doubt so created, and on a conjoint reading of
the statements of Kalla, the complainant and other witnesses, this
Court is inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the
accused-appellant.
The present appeal, thus, is allowed. The judgement dated
29.09.1993 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of
(Downloaded on 16/04/2022 at 08:32:56 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-420/1993]
Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh in Sessions
Case No.12/92 convicting the accused-appellant for the offence
under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act, Section 451 & 354 IPC is set
aside. As sentence has already been suspended by this Court vide
order dated 27.10.1993 and the accused is on bail, thus, he need
not to surrender. His bail-bonds are discharged.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
44-Nirmala/Sanjay
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
