Deen Dayal vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5728 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 295/2010

Deen Dayal

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. V.K. Bhadu
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, P.P.
                                 Mr. Manish Dadhich

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

20/04/2022

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 revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed. The order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria in Criminal Revision No.38/2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria dated 24.07.2009 may kindly be restored."

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the

learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner are that the

complainant/petitioner submitted a complaint before the learned

(2 of 6) [CRLR-295/2010]

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya on 06.10.2008,

levelling allegations against the accused-respondents regarding

assaulting the complainant/petitioner as well as hurling caste

based abuses against him; the same was sent by the learned

court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to be

conducted by the Aarakshi Kendra, Sangariya, whereupon an FIR

bearing No.552/2008 for the offences under Section 323 & 342

IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was

registered at Police Station, Sangariya District Hanumangarh, and

after investigation, negative final report was submitted before the

learned trial court.

3.1 Thereafter, upon being summoned, complainant/petitioner

Deendayal and others (Daulat Ram, Lal Chand & Jaspal) appeared

before the learned trial court, whereupon their statements were

recorded; whereafter, upon hearing the arguments of the

respective parties, the learned trial court vide its order dated

24.07.2009 took cognizance against the accused-respondents

(Gopal Singh and Arjun Singh) under Section 323 read with

Section 34 IPC only, while declining to accept the negative final

report submitted by the police, and accordingly, the matter was

ordered to be registered as a criminal complaint/case.

3.2 Against the aforesaid cognizance order, the accused-

respondents herein filed a criminal revision petition before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya (learned revisional

court), which was allowed vide the impugned order dated

03.03.2010, while quashing and setting aside the cognizance

order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned trial court. Being

aggrieved by the order passed by the learned revisional court, the

(3 of 6) [CRLR-295/2010]

present petition has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner

before this Hon'ble Court.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that

the learned revisional court has erred in passing the impugned

order; and that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the

fact that the testimonies of witnesses lent support to the case of

the petitioner/complainant, which was supplemented by medical

evidence (injury report), wherein two injuries were found on the

body of the petitioner. And that, the witnesses' testimony when

coupled with the medical evidence, offences under Section 323/34

I.P.C. was found to be made out against the accused-respondents,

and thus, the cognizance order passed by the learned trial court

was perfectly justified, and the same has wrongly been interfered

with by the learned revisional court.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner placed

reliance on the following judgments in support of his

submissions:-

(a) Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC

338;

(b) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8

SCC 617;

(c) Natwar Lal and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. RLW 2008 (3)

Raj. 2522; and

(d) Shivlal Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2009 (2)

WLN 535.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel counsel for the accused-

respondents, while opposing the aforementioned submissions

made on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, submits that the

(4 of 6) [CRLR-295/2010]

learned revisional court, has rightly passed the impugned order

whereby the learned court quashed the aforementioned

cognizance order of the learned trial court; the same was done by

the learned revisional court, after taking into due consideration

the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and after

considering the entire evidence placed on record before it.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents further submits

that the learned revisional court has rightly found that there are

inconsistencies in the testimonies rendered by the witnesses

produced by the complainant party.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents also submits

that with regard to the medical evidence, the learned revisional

court, in the impugned order, found that the medical report

revealed that as per medical examination conducted on

04.10.2008, the complainant/petitioner sustained only two

injuries, although in the complaint he averred that the accused-

respondents had beaten him up with a belt and 'rubber ke patte' ;

furthermore, it was recorded in the impugned order passed by the

learned revisional court that even the aforementioned two injuries

on the body of the complainant/petitioner, as per the medical

opinion, were about a week old, during which time the

complainant/petitioner was in jail (until he release on bail on

29.09.2008), and therefore, the cause and perpetrator of such

injury could not be appropriately ascertained.

9. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the bar.

(5 of 6) [CRLR-295/2010]

10. This Court observes that the impugned order passed by the

learned revisional court is a detailed and well reasoned speaking

order.

11. This Court further observes that the learned revisional court,

vide the impugned order, has set aside the order of the learned

trial court with the findings, amongst others, that there are

material contradictions in the witnesses' testimonies, namely Shri

Daulat Ram and Shri Jaspal, regarding the role of the accused-

respondents in the incident in question, and that, it was,

therefore, not possible to properly and completely ascertain, as to

who in fact was the perpetrator of the crime in question, and who

was in fact involved in the commission of the said crime. And that,

regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant/petitioner, the

learned revisional found that the role of the present accused-

respondents in causing such injuries is very much doubtful, rather

there is no such possibility.

12. Furthermore, the learned revisional court, in the impugned

order, also recorded a clear and cogent reasoning in regard to the

role of the present accused-respondents in causing the injuries to

the complainant/petitioner, to the effect that the medical

examination, which was conducted on 04.10.2008, clearly

revealed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were in fact,

a week old (around 29.09.2008), and that since the

complainant/petitioner was sent to judicial custody by the

competent court on 27.09.2008, whereas the

complainant/petitioner was released on bail on 29.09.2008 (the

date on which, as per the medical opinion, the

complainant/petitioner sustained the aforementioned injuries),

(6 of 6) [CRLR-295/2010]

and therefore, it was not possible to ascertain exactly as to when

the complainant/petitioner sustained the injuries in question -

whether in custody or while on bail. And that, although in the

complaint so filed by the complainant/petitioner, he averred that

he was beaten up by the accused-respondents with a belt and

'rubber ke patte' and there were two injuries found on his body, as

laid out in the medical report.

13. In light of the above made observations, this Court finds the

impugned order passed by the learned revisional court to be a

detailed and well reasoned speaking order, which has been passed

after taking into due consideration the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, and the evidence placed on record

before it.

14. This Court also finds that the case laws cited by the learned

counsel for the complainant/petitioner do not render any

assistance to his case.

15. In view of the above, this Court does not find a case to be

made out so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the

impugned order passed by the learned court below.

16. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below

be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

65-Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)