Chail Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5907 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                  S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 201/2023

Chail Singh S/o Sh. Uk Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Amba Ka
Goliya, Jhab Police Station, The Then/presently Manager Of
Saraswati Vidhya Mandir, Surana, Sayla, Police Station, Teh.
Sayla, Dist. Jalore.
(Confined In Dist. Jail, Jalore).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.        Kishore Kumar S/o Pola Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Surana,
          Sayla Police Station, Dist. Jalore.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr.JVS Deora.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr.Arun Kumar, P.P.
For Complainant(s)         :    Mr.Anil Biden.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                                JUDGMENT

16/08/2023

The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has

been filed by the appellant against the order dated 14.12.2022

passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore in Sessions Case

No.71/2022, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant,

who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.155/2022

registered at Police Station Sayla, District Jalore, for offences

under Sections 302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 75,

82(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, has

been rejected.

As per prosecution, the complainant on 13.08.2022

submitted a written complaint stating inter alia that his nephew-

(2 of 7) [CRLAS-201/2023]

Indra Kumar was studying in III standard in Saraswati Vidhya

Mandir. As per complainant, on 20.07.2022, at about 10:30-11

am, Indra Kumar went to drink water from an earthen pot kept

separately for present appellant, who belongs to upper caste and

is a teacher in the abovementioned school. As per complainant,

the present appellant on seeing Indra Kumar drinking water from

the earthen pot kept separately for him, got furious and slapped

Indra Kumar near his right ear and eye and also hurled casteist

slurs/abuses. As per complainant, Indra Kumar was thereafter

taken to various hospitals for treatment, however, on 13.08.2022,

he died while undergoing treatment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR, for

the alleged incident dated 20.07.2022 has been lodged after an

unexplained delay of about 23 days after forming a false and

concocted story, only with a view to rope the appellant in a false

criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that on the date of

alleged incident, deceased- Indra and one other student namely

Rajesh Kumar were fighting over a trivial issue. It was submitted

that the appellant on seeing them fighting, slapped both of them,

being unaware of the fact that the deceased was suffering from a

chronic infection in his right ear, owing to which pus used to

discharge from his ears.

To substantiate this contention, attention of the Court was

drawn towards the statements of students namely, Kanchan,

Kareena, Hitesh, Surajpal, Imran Khan, Naresh Banjara, Rajesh

and teacher namely Gattaram Meghwal etc., recorded under

relevant provisions of CrPC, who have stated that there is no

separate earthen pot kept for the present appellant and all

(3 of 7) [CRLAS-201/2023]

students and teachers commonly use water tank kept in the

school premises for drinking water.

It was urged that these students have stated that the

present appellant on seeing deceased- Inder and Rajesh fighting

in classroom, slapped them. These students also did not disclose

that the appellant used any casteist slurs/ abuses against

deceased. The Court's attention was also invited towards the

statements of various other independent witnesses to fortify the

above made submissions.

Learned counsel further submitted that after the deceased

was slapped by the appellant, he complained of severe pain in the

ear, whereupon, he was allowed to go to the shop of his father

which is situated in close vicinity of the school. It was submitted

that the father of the deceased provided first aid to the deceased

and brought medicines for him. However, when even after lapse of

2-3 days, the deceased did not get any relief, on 22.07.2022, he

was taken to Bajrang Hospital, where he was provided treatment

by Dr. Chandra Kishore Sharma. The deceased was thereafter

taken to Triveni Hospital, Bhinmal, where he was treated by Dr.

Jugmal Ram, however, when the condition of deceased did not

improve, he was taken to a higher medical centre situated in

Gujarat for treatment.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the statement of Dr.

Jugmal Ram and Dr. Chandra Kishore Sharma under Section 161

CrPC, learned counsel submitted that both the doctors have

categorically stated that the family members of the deceased did

not tell them that the deceased was beaten. The attention of the

Court was invited towards the statement of doctors and submitted

(4 of 7) [CRLAS-201/2023]

that the deceased was suffering from 'thrombosis with the brain

infarts'.

Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards the

statement of Dr. Harshad Thariya, Medical Jurist, Civil Hospital,

Ahmedabad, recorded under Section 161 CrPC to submit that Dr.

Harshad Thariya along with Dr. Alok Sharma and Indra Kumar

Meghwal conducted post mortem of the deceased. Dr. Harshad

Thariya in his statement under Section 161 CrPC has stated that

the cause of death of the deceased was 'cardiac respiratory failure

due to brain infection'. Dr. Harshad Thariya also stated that there

was pus accumulated in the brain of the deceased and in the

cases, where a patient is suffering an old ailment of ear, the illness

suffered by the deceased could be aggravated.

On the strength of statements of treating doctors of the

deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC, learned counsel

submitted that since the deceased was suffering from an old

chronic ear infection, the same got aggravated when the appellant

slapped him in the classroom on seeing him fighting with Rajesh

Kumar.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant neither hurled

any casteist slurs/ abuses against deceased nor slapped him with

heavy force which could in ordinary course of nature cause his

death. Learned counsel reiterated that the appellant did not have

any knowledge that the deceased was suffering from 'thrombosis

with the brain infarts'.

Lastly, learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards

the analysis of two pen drives handed over to investigating agency

by one Vijay Singh son of Gumaan Singh and Ashok Kumar son of

(5 of 7) [CRLAS-201/2023]

Rupa Ram allegedly containing conversations between father of

the deceased and one Vijay Singh, to contend that the family

members of the deceased wanted monetary compensation from

the appellant. However, when the appellant refused, a false case

has been foisted against him.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial

custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take

sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be

granted to the accused-appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

Attention of the Court was drawn towards the statements of

Rajesh Kumar (brother of the deceased) and Deva Ram, father of

the deceased recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein they

have maintained the allegation of use of casteist abuses and

slapping the deceased on drinking water from a separate earthen

pot kept for the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that looking

to the seriousness of the accusations against the appellant, he

does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor and learned

counsel for the complainant prayed that the appellant may not be

granted bail in the present case.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, statements of the students, teachers

and doctors annexed with the challan papers, so also the analysis

(6 of 7) [CRLAS-201/2023]

of pen-drives and other material, this Court finds that serious

allegations have been levelled against the present appellant by the

prosecution.

This Court is conscious that while considering bail

application, it should not minutely go through the evidence

collected by the investigating agency or engage in a detailed

discussion on the merits of the case, however, in order to prima

facie assess the gravity and seriousness of the accusations and to

find out that the appellant has committed the offences as alleged,

a cursory scan of the material/evidence available on record

becomes imperative.

This Court after carefully scanning the material available on

record, prima facie finds that though, the allegation of slapping

the students is proved against the present appellant but prima

facie, the appellant was not aware that the deceased was suffering

from chronic infection in his right ear which got aggravated on

being slapped by the appellant.

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the essential

ingredients of Section 302 IPC i.e. an intention of causing death or

the action by the accused with the knowledge that his act may or

is likely to cause death of another is missing in the present case.

This Court though has noted the facts leading to filing of

challan against the present appellant in great detail but is

refraining itself from any further comment on the merits of the

case as the same is likely to affect trial pending before competent

criminal court either way.

This Court is also of the view the allegation against the

appellant for offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of

(7 of 7) [CRLAS-201/2023]

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, is to be proved by the prosecution during trial, through

an independent scrutiny and therefore, allegation itself may not be

enough to deny bail to the appellant under Section 439 CrPC.

In view of discussion made herein-above, this Court is of the

opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act is allowed. The order dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned

Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore is set aside and it is ordered that

the accused-appellant- Chail Singh S/o Sh. Uk Singh shall be

enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.155/2022 registered at

Police Station Sayla, District Jalore, provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for

his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of

hearing as and when called upon to so.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.241

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)