Bhanwar Lal vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6495 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1142/2009

Bhanwar Lal

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate
                               assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan PP
                               Mr. D.K. Gaur



     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. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 22.06.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases - Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Barmer, whereby the present accused-

respondents No.2 to 6 have been acquitted for the offences under

Secdtions 147, 323 & 452 IPC and Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST Act.

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

Choudhyar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pradeep

Choudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that the

(2 of 6) [CRLR-1142/2009]

complainant/petitioner submitted a written report on 07.09.2007

at about 04:45 p.m. before the Police Station, Shiv, alleging

therein that on the said date, while the complainant/petitioner was

sitting with the owner of a medical store, namely Ashok Kumar,

the accused-respondents came to the shop, and while hurling,

amongst others, the caste-based abuses against the complainant/

petitioner, they demanded money from the complainant/petitioner

for purchasing liquor; upon denial on the part of the complainant/

petitioner to fulfill such demand, the accused-respondents

dragged the complainant/petitioner out of the shop and inflicted

lathi blows upon him; however, one Champalal and Ashok Kumar

came to the rescue of the complainant/petitioner.

3.1 On the basis of the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing

No.130/2007 was registered at Police Station, Shiv against the

accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 143, 323,

327 & 452 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act; thereafter,

the investigation commenced. After investigation, a charge-sheet

was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, against

the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 452

& 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act; however,

thereafter, owing to the nature of the alleged offence under the

SC/ST Act, the matter was committed to the Court of learned

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

Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer for trial.

3.2 Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against

the accused-respondents Kailash Singh and Tej Singh for the

offences under Sections 147 & 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the

SC/ST Act, and against accused-respondents Jeevraj Singh, Murar

(3 of 6) [CRLR-1142/2009]

Singh and Prithvi Singh for the offences under Sections 147, 323

& 452 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act; the accused-

respondents upon denying the said charges, were made to stand

the trial. However, thereafter, upon hearing the final arguments

advanced by both the parties at length and examining the record

placed before it, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-

respondents from the aforementioned offences, vide the impugned

judgment dated 22.06.2009; where against, the present petition

has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant/petitioner

submits that the learned trial court has erred in passing the

impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-

respondents, as the material and evidence available on record

before the learned trial court were sufficient for holding the

accused-respondents guilty for the alleged offences.

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned trial

court has not made the requisite efforts for production and

examination of the complainant and other witnesses, namely,

Ashok Kumar, Bahadur Khan and Kripa Shanker, rather closed

their evidence. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the impugned

judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside on that count

alone.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the learned trial

court has not duly appreciated the testimony of PW-2 Champa Lal

and PW-3 Khumana, despite both of them being the injured

witnesses and have supported the prosecution story in

unequivocal terms, coupled with the testimony (medical evidence)

of PW-4 Dr. Narendra Kumar, who duly proved the injuries on the

(4 of 6) [CRLR-1142/2009]

persons of the complainant/petitioner Bhanwarlal, Khumana and

Champa Lal.

4.3 Learned Senior Counsel thus prays that looking, amongst

others, the fact that the prosecution has clearly established the

charges against the accused-respondents, beyond all reasonable

doubts, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court

may be interfered with by this Court.

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

respondents, while opposing the aforementioned submissions

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

learned trial court, has rightly passed the impugned judgment

whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents

of all the charges levelled against them; the same was done by

the learned trial 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.

5.1 As per learned counsel, the learned trial court had made

every possible lawful endeavour in securing presence and

evidence of the above-named prosecution witnesses, but despite

that, they did not put in their appearance before the learned trial

court; thus, their evidence was rightly closed by the learned trial

court.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents further submits

that the learned trial court has rightly found that the evidence

rendered by the witnesses produced by the prosecution before the

learned trial court were quite deficient, rather inconsistent. Thus,

as per learned counsel, the aforementioned backdrop clearly

(5 of 6) [CRLR-1142/2009]

indicates that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges

against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts.

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

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned

trial court has not committed any error - either in law or on facts -

in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal.

8. Upon going through the record of the case alongwith the

impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, this Court

finds that the prosecution, despite repeated opportunities having

been given by the learned trial court, could not produce some of

the crucial witnesses, namely, Ashok Kumar, Bahadur Khan and

Kripa Shanker for examination. Such failure on the part of the

prosecution, alone casts a serious doubt upon the case of the

prosecution, coupled with the fact that such failure is clearly

detrimental to the case of the prosecution. This is more so when,

as per the prosecution itself, the witnesses who did not appear

before the learned trial court were very much crucial for

adjudication of the case.

9. This Court also finds that the learned trial court has arrived

at a cogent and reasoned conclusion in passing the impugned

judgment, that even the evidence rendered by the prosecution

witnesses produced for examination before the learned trial court

suffered from several deficiencies, and thus, on the basis of such

deficient evidence, the accused-respondents could not be held

guilty for the offences alleged against them.

10. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the criminal proceeding as

launched against the present accused-respondents, particularly

seeking invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, is nothing

(6 of 6) [CRLR-1142/2009]

but a clear abuse of the process of law; thus, the same was rightly

set at naught by the learned trial court vide the impugned

judgment. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that such criminal

proceedings, cannot be allowed to be resumed, so as to made the

accused-respondents to suffer another round of litigation, that

too, on wrongful premises.

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

impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court to be a

detailed and well reasoned speaking judgment, 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; thus, the same does not call for any interference by this

Court.

12. 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.

146-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)