Bhanwari Lal And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:24622)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5540 Raj

2023:RJ-JD:24622

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR


                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 449/1994

1. Banwari Lal son of Shri Pat Ram, by caste Bishnoi,
2. Makhan Singh son of Shri Bhaga Ram, by caste Bawri,
both residents of 23, P.s. (B), Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Gangangar
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                        Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)               :    Mr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Judgment


Judgment pronounced on : 03/08/2023


Judgment reserved on : 25/07/2023


By the Court :

1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal

under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment

dated 27.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act CAses, Sri

Ganganagar in Regular Criminal Case No.8/1994, whereby

appellant Banwari Lal has been convicted for the offences under

Sections 452 and 323 of the IPC and appellant Makhan Singh has

been convicted for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and

they were released on probation under Section 4(1) of the

Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing a personal bond in the

2023:RJ-JD:24622 (2 of 7) [CRLA-449/1994]

sum of Rs.3,000/- alongwith a surety in the like amount. Each of

the appellant was further ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- as

prosecution expenses and appellant Banwari Lal was ordered to

deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to be provided to the

complainant.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant

appeal are that on 02.10.1991 Smt. Uda Devi and Smt. Sugna

Devi submitted a report (Ex.P/2) to the SHO, Police Station

Raisinghnagar, wherein it was stated that on 01.10.1991 in the

night at about 10.00-10.30 p.m. Banwari Lal, Makhan Singh,

Bhanwar Lal, Pyare Lal and Ram Lal, who were in intoxicated

condition, armed with lathis and gandasis, entered in their house

with common intention and scuffled with the ladies to outrage

their modesty; torn their clothes and behaved indecently with

them. Banwari Lal and Pyare Lal snatched gold ornaments worn

by Uda Devi, while Bhanwar Lal snatched gold ornament worn by

Sugana Devi. When the ladies made a hue and cry, Om Prakash,

Subhash etc. came and, upon which the accused persons fled from

the scene leaving behind their sleepers and lathi. They also made

assault on the Madan Lal.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.301/1991 for the

offences under Sections 452, 379, 354, 147, 148, 149 and 323

IPC was registered and the investigation was commenced. During

the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of

incident, prepared spot documents, made recoveries and got the

injured medically examined. After completion of the investigation,

2023:RJ-JD:24622 (3 of 7) [CRLA-449/1994]

a charge-sheet came to be filed against Banwari Lal and Makhan

Singh for the offences under Section 452, 354, 323 IPC and

Section 3 of the SC/ST Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Raisinghnagar, from where the case was committed and

transferred to the trial court.

4. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments on

charge, framed charges against appellant Banwari Lal for the

offences under Sections 452, 323, 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)

(11) of the SC/ST Act and against appellant Makhan for the

offence under Section 323, 354 and 452 of the IPC. The accused

denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in order to

prove its case, examined 9 witnesses, namely, Madan Lal (P.W.1),

Uda Devi (P.W.2), Sugan Devi (P.W.3), Ashi Devi (P.W.4), Subhash

Chandra (P.W.5), Dr. S.C. Gupta (P.W.6), Jangir Singh (P.W.7),

Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.8) and Abdul Aziz (P.W.9), and

exhibited various documents. Upon being confronted with the

prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313

CrPC, the accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent.

Two witnesses Banwari Lal (D.W.1) and Leeluram (D.W.2) were

examined in defence.

6. After through appreciation of the evidence placed on record,

testimonies of the witnesses and after hearing the learned Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, the learned trial court

vide the impugned judgment dated 27.08.1994 acquitted the

2023:RJ-JD:24622 (4 of 7) [CRLA-449/1994]

appellant Banwari Lal from the charge under Section 354 of the

IPC read with Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act and appellant

Makhan Singh from the charges under Sections 354 and 323 of

the IPC, however, convicted them for the offences mentioned

above and granted them the benefit of probation under Section

4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Being aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, the appellants have preferred the instant

appeal.

7. To assail the impugned judgment, the contentions of the

learned counsel for the appellants are that the appellants have

been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution has failed to

prove the offences against the appellants by producing cogent and

unimpeachable evidence. All the alleged eye-witnesses are

related to each other and their version is not supported by any

independent witness. There are many contradictions in the

testimonies of the witnesses and they have improved or changed

the story in their statements on oath. The medical evidence does

not corroborate the story set out by the prosecution witnesses.

The reason assigned for the alleged offence is unbelievable. On

these grounds, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed; the

impugned judgment may be set aside and the appellants may be

acquitted from the charges.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that the

prosecution has proved its case as against the accused by

unimpeachable evidence of the eye-witnesses, the Medical

evidence and other evidence placed on record and hence, as per

2023:RJ-JD:24622 (5 of 7) [CRLA-449/1994]

him, the trial court was absolutely justified in convicting the

appellants by the impugned judgment. There was no reason for

the complainant and other witnesses to falsely implicate the

appellant. Despite convicting the appellants, the learned trial curt

has already taken a lenient view by not sending them to jail and

granting them the benefit of probation. On basis of these

submissions, learned Public Prosecutor implored the court to

dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and have gone

through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-

appreciated the evidence available on record.

10. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.10.1991 in the

night at about 10.00-10.30 p.m., the two appellants and three

other persons entered in the house of the complainant in

intoxicated condition armed with lathis and gandasis and tried to

outrage the modesty of women of the house, i.e. Uda Devi (P.W.2)

and Sugana Devi (P.W.3), who belong to Scheduled Caste, and

they also assaulted Madan Lal (P.W.1). As per statement of

Madan Lal (P.W.1), Banwari Lal was armed with a lathi and

Makhan Singh was armed with a gandasi. They first assaulted him

and then entered the room of his wife Uda Devi and tore her

clothes. Uda Devi (P.W.2) corroborated the story of Mdan Lal.

Sugana Devi (P.W.3) also narrated a similarly story and stated that

when she reached the room of Uda Devi, the accused also tore her

clothes. Ashi Devi (P.W.4), daughter of Mandan Lal, and Subhash

2023:RJ-JD:24622 (6 of 7) [CRLA-449/1994]

(P.W.5), nephew of Madan Lal gave statement on the same lines.

Jangir Singh (P.W.7) is an independent witness, who stated that

he saw Banwari Lal and Makhan Singh coming out of the house of

the complainant at 09-10 o'clock in the night of incident. Based on

the statements of the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6, which find further

corroboration from the testimony of independent witnesses Jangir

Singh (P.W.7), the learned trial court came to the conclusion that

in the night of the incident, the appellants trespassed into the

house of the complainant armed with lathis and gandasis, thus,

the offence under Section 452 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable

doubt.

11. Madan Singh (P.W.1) stated that Banwari Lal caused him

blows by lathi on hips and Makhan Singh caused injury on his right

leg, but since Dr. S.C. Gupta (P.W.6), in the injury report (Ex.P/6)

noticed only two injuries on the person of Madan Lal, which were

on hips, appellant Makhan Singh was acquitted from the charge

under Section 323 and only appellant Banwari Lal was found guilty

of said offence.

12. So far as the offence under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST

Act is concerned, the learned trial court did not find the evidence

available on record sufficient to convict the appellants for the said

offence.

13. Upon re-appreciation of evidence and thoughtful

consideration, this court is of the opinion that though there are

minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, but a

2023:RJ-JD:24622 (7 of 7) [CRLA-449/1994]

careful scrutiny of the same does not give rise to any suspicion

over their truthfulness specially when the same is further

corroborated by other material available on record. In the

considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to

prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by

producing cogent and unimpeachable evidence. The learned trial

court has prudently discussed the entire evidence in detail and

based upon thorough appreciation of the same has reached to the

conclusion of guilt of the appellant. Further, even after convicting

the appellant, a lenient view has been taken and instead of

sentencing them to suffer imprisonment, benefit of probation has

been given to them. I find no error, irregularity or illegality in the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of probation, which

may call for interference in this appeal.

14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 27.08.1994

passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act CAses, Sri

Ganganagar in Regular Criminal Case No.8/1994 is affirmed. The

appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

15. The record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)