Smt. Badami Bhil vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6494 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 275/2001

Smt. Badami Bhil

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 542/2000 Ramkrishan Das

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Usman Ghani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan PP Mr. Nadish Singhvi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

05/05/2022

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. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.275/2001 has been preferred against the judgment dated

30.08.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Case

No.400/98, whereby the respondents No.2 to 7 have been

(2 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

acquitted from the charges levelled against them; above-

numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.542/2000 has

been preferred against the judgment dated 18.07.2000 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Asind, Bhilwara in

Criminal Regular Case No.28/96, whereby the respondents No.2 &

3 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

2.1 The prayers made in both the present petitions are to the

effect of quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments, and

remanding the matter back to the learned trial courts.

3. This Hon'ble Court in the order dated 09.11.2001 has

recorded that since the respondent No.7-Laxman in S.B. Criminal

Revision Petition No.275/2001 had passed away, therefore, the

proceedings against him shall stand dropped accordingly.

4. As regards Revision Petition No.275/2001, the facts, in

bare essentials, are that the petitioner's husband (original

complainant Sukhdev, now deceased) had lodged a written first

information before the Police Station Badnore, Bhilwara on

14.04.1997, alleging therein that he was a Sijari of the land of

Mandir Shri Thakur Narsing Ji Maharaj Sakin Deh, Patan. It was

further alleged that on 14.04.1997, while the deceased

complainant went to the field at about 9:00 a.m. for sowing the

seeds, the accused-respondents came there and started abusing

him with caste-based and other abuses; and also threatened him

of dire consequences, if he continue with sowing the seeds in the

field.

4.1 On the basis of the aforementioned first information, a case

No.30/1997 was registered against the accused-respondents;

during the course of investigation, the necessary report from the

revenue department was obtained alongwith other relevant

(3 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

documents; after investigation, the challan was filed before the

learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 447 & 323

IPC and Section 3(1)(V)(x) of the SC/ST Act; the case however,

was transferred to the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act Cases, owing to the nature of the alleged

offences under the SC/ST Act.

4.2 The learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated

30.08.2000, acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 from

the charges levelled against them; hence, the present Revision

Petition No.275/2001 has been preferred by the wife of the

complainant, as the original complainant had already expired.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner (original complainant's

wife), in Revision Petition No.275/2001, submits that the

revenue report, as produced before the learned trial court clearly

shows that the original complainant-Sukhdev (now deceased) was

Sijari of the land, entered in the name of the Temple, as above, in

the revenue records; the said land was obtained under Sijara from

Mahant Ram Krishan, and thus, the original complainant was

having the cultivatory rights over the Sijara land, but the accused-

respondents unlawfully restrained the original complainant from

exercising such cultivatory rights; not only this, the accused-

respondents gave beatings to the original complainant, while

hurling caste-based abuses against him. Learned counsel further

submits that one Shri Ram Krishan Das and two other persons

however, came to the rescue of the original complainant.

5.1 Learned counsel also submits that the record clearly reveals

that the accused-respondents subjected the original complainant

to beatings, encroached upon his agricultural/cultivatory rights

and hurled caste-based abuses against him, while knowing very

(4 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

well that he is a member of the scheduled caste community.

Learned counsel however, submits that since the original

complainant died during the ongoing litigation, therefore, he could

not render his evidence; but the written information as submitted

by the original complainant was very much part of the record,

which was sufficient for holding the accused-respondents guilty for

the alleged offences.

5.2 As per learned counsel, however, the learned trial court, vide

the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2000, without duly

appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the

evidence placed before it, acquitted the accused-respondents from

the charges levelled against them, and thus, the impugned

judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves

interference by this Court.

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

respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner, submits that the accused-respondents

were entitled for acquittal, mainly on the ground that the original

complainant was not produced by the prosecution for rendering

his evidence; apart therefrom, none of the prosecution evidence

as produced before the learned trial court was sufficient to hold

the accused-respondents guilty of the alleged offences.

6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court

recorded a categorical finding, while drawing support from the

record placed before it, that the present dispute was the outcome

of the revenue lis between the parties; further a categorical

finding was recorded by the learned trial court that the crucial

witnesses, namely Ramchandra Sen and Satyanarayan Sharma

(5 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

clearly stated that they did not know the present accused-

respondents by their names.

6.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court,

vide the impugned judgment, also recorded that the evidence

placed on record before it, was clearly insufficient to hold the

accused-respondents guilty, amongst others, for creating and

becoming part of an unlawful assembly and criminal trespass, and

rightly so. Learned counsel further submits that the present

criminal proceeding, as launched against the accused-

respondents, is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law,

more particularly, seeking invocation of the provisions of the

SC/ST Act, with a clear motive to settle personal scores with the

accused-respondents, owing to the revenue lis between the

parties.

6.3 Thus, as per learned counsel, the prosecution clearly failed to

prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts; hence, the impugned

judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court does not

suffer, amongst others, from lack of appreciation of the evidence

placed on record before it; that apart, the learned trial court has

taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of

the case and has also considered each and every aspect material

for the purpose of adjudication.

7. As regards Revision Petition No.542/2000, the facts, in

brief, are that the petitioner therein lodged a written report before

the Police Station Badnore, Bhilwara on 21.01.1996 mentioning

therein that he was Mahant and Pujari and Manager of the Land of

Mandir Shri Thakur Narsingh Ji Maharaj Sakin Deh, Patan and the

said Mandir/Deity holds land bearing khasra No.2097, 2098, 2099,

(6 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

256, 257, 259, 263, 164, 258, 268, 264, 162, 262, 4342/260

measuring in total 4.10 hectares.

7.1 It was alleged in the report that while on 21.01.1996, the

complainant/petitioner went to inspect the crops in the field, the

accused-respondents, armed with sticks and stone, unlawfully

entered the said field, and thereafter, abused and assaulted the

complainant, which act was resisted by one Mangi Nai, who was

accompanying the complainant/petitioner, at the relevant time.

7.2 On such report, a case No.6/96 was registered against the

accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 447, 352

and 504/34 IPC; after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

under the aforementioned offences against the accused-

respondents.

7.3 The learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated

18.07.2000, acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges

levelled against them for the reasons recorded in the said

judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner in Revision

Petition No.542/2000 submits that the complainant/petitioner

has placed on record before the learned trial court all the relevant

documents, including the revenue records, to show that the land

in question was in lawful possession of the Deity, of which the

complainant was Mahant/Pujari, and was having the cultivatory

rights over such land, which were sought to be disturbed by the

alleged unlawful and criminal act of the accused-respondents.

8.1 Learned counsel however, submits that it is immaterial in the

present criminal proceedings as to who is the owner of the land

and whether there is any lis between the parties in regard thereto,

as the present criminal proceeding is independent, more

(7 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

particularly, when the evidence placed on record clearly shows the

commission of the alleged offences by the accused-respondents.

8.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has

made a reference in the impugned judgment regarding the status

quo order passed by this Hon'ble Court, despite the fact that the

status quo order does not go in favour of or against any party to

the lis; however, the same was given undue weightage by the

learned trial court, while passing the impugned judgment of

acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents; this is more so

when the proceedings in question are criminal proceedings.

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

respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the complainant/petitioner, submits that as revealed

from the impugned judgment, as per the testimony of PW2

Mangilal, the accused-respondents were cultivating the

aforementioned land; complainant-Ram Krishan Das, in his cross-

examination, admitted that though the accused-respondents came

to the field, with the alleged intention of assaulting the

complainant, but due to resistance by Mangilal, no such incident

could take place. Thus, as per the learned counsel, in absence of

any such incident of assault having taken place, the alleged

offence concerned was not made out against the accused

respondents.

9.1 Learned counsel further submits that PW-3 Sukhdev has not

supported the prosecution story; PW-5 Laxmilal, the then Patwari,

also pleaded ignorance about the alleged incident in question.

9.2 Thus, as per learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to

prove the charges levelled against the accused-respondents,

beyond all reasonable doubts, neither on the strength of the

(8 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

prosecution witnesses, nor by placing any incriminating evidence

on record before the learned trial court. Hence, the impugned

judgment, which duly dealt with all the evidence on record,

coupled with overall consideration of the facts and circumstances

of the case, calls for no interference by this Court.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in both the

present petitions as well as perused the record of the case, this

Court finds, amongst others, that the offences alleged against the

present accused-respondents are trivial in nature, and that too,

could not be proved against them beyond all reasonable doubts;

the learned trial courts have given findings, supported by cogent

reasoning, while passing the impugned judgments of acquittal of

the accused-respondents, more particularly, that the present

criminal proceedings are nothing but an outcome of the revenue

disputes between the parties; absence of clear testimony of the

crucial prosecution witnesses so as to render any support to the

prosecution story; no sufficient proof or evidence, particularly the

testimony of the original complainant (deceased Sukhdev - in

Revision Petition No.275/2001) - may be due to his demise - was

placed on record, so as to convince the learned trial courts to hold

the present accused-respondents guilty of the alleged offences,

including the offence under the SC/ST Act and; prosecution has

not been able to prove the charges against the present accused

respondents, beyond all reasonable doubts.

10.1 Such deficiencies, which are discernible on the face of the

record and in the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial

courts, are clearly detrimental to the case of the prosecution,

more particularly, when no satisfactory explanation therefor was

forthcoming before the learned trial courts nor before this Court,

(9 of 9) [CRLR-275/2001]

so as to persuade this Court to take a different view than the one

already taken by the learned trial courts vide the impugned

judgments.

11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned

judgments of acquittal passed by the learned trial courts are well

reasoned speaking judgments, which do not warrant any

interference by this Court.

12. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned

court below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

65-66-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)