Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Binjaram vs State And Ors on 8 December, 2023
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JD:41304]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 942/2004
Binjaram S/o Govindram by cast Meghwal, R/o Jakheda, Police
Station Degana, District nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Krishnaram S/o Ugmaram by caste Jat
3. Budharam S/o Prabhuram by cast Meghwal
4. Satyanarain S/o Bhuganaram by cast Harijan
5. Missaram S/o Poosaram (adopted son of Ganeshram) by
caste Bawari
6. Kisturaram S/o of Premmaram by caste Bawri
7. Gopiram S/o Ranglal by caste Bawari
All resident of Jakheda Police Station Degana, District
Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Gaur
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. A.R. Choudhary
For Respondent : Mr. Ravindra Acharya
Nos.2 to 7
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
08 /12 /2023
1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred
against the judgment dated 05.11.2004 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
[2023:RJ-JD:41304] (2 of 6) [CRLR-942/2004]
cases, Merta District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.36/2004,
whereby non-petitioners Krishnaram, Budharam,
Satyanarain, Missaram, Kisturaram and Gopiram were
acquitted for the offences under Sections 143, 452 & 323
(149) of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-
Binjaram lodged a report at Police Station Degana, District
Nagaur on 30.06.2004 alleging that he is poor member of SC
category and presently Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Jakhera. The accused Kishnaram, Budharam, Satyanarain,
Misaram, Poosaram, Gopiram and son of Pemaram after
making an unlawful assembly and with intention to commit
crime, entered into his house and inflicted injuries to him
and abuse the complainant with words like Dhedh etc.
3. On the above, report was registered under Sections
323, 143 & 451 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST
Act.
4. After investigation police filed the challan against the
above accused under Sections 143, 323 & 452 read with
Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST Act.
5. Learned trial court after framing charges commenced
the trial and vide impugned judgment dated 05.11.2004
acquitted the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 under Sections 143,
451 & 323 and under Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST Act.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the trial court has erred in arriving at the conclusion
[2023:RJ-JD:41304] (3 of 6) [CRLR-942/2004]
that no offence was committed by the accused respondent
Nos.2 to 7. There was enough evidence on record, which
indicate that the accused respondent Nos.2 to 7 while
making unlawful assembly assaulted the complainant
Binjaram and abused him with works like Dhedh, Neech etc.
therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial
court is not based upon the right appreciation of evidence.
7. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of State
and non-petitioners No.2 to 7 justifies the order of acquittal
passed by the learned trial court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
though the material available on record.
9. PW/1- Mangla Ram is the eye witness and in his
examination in chief, he has denied the prosecution story
and was declared hostile. In his cross examination he has
refuted that any occurrence took place.
10. PW/2- Kishnaram is also an eye witness and in his
statement, he has stated that he was present at the
residence of Binjaram and at that time accused Kishnaram
Jat, Kisturaram, Gopiram, Budharam, Misaram and Satturam
entered into the house of Binjaram and started assaulting
him. He was also declared hostile and in his cross
examination he has stated that all the accused abused the
complainant Binjaram while uttering the words Dhedh, Neech
etc. In cross examination by the defence, he has again
controverted his own statement and stated that at the time
[2023:RJ-JD:41304] (4 of 6) [CRLR-942/2004]
of occurrence he was not present, he did not see any
altercation between the parties. He also accepted that he did
not know that who abused the complainant. In cross
examination by the defence counsel the witness has stated
that at the time of preparing food there was no altercation
between the parties. In the prosecution story it is specifically
stated that Kishnaram Jat uttered abusive words to
complainant- Binjaram, whereas PW/2- Kishnaram has
stated that all the six accused abused the Binjaram.
Therefore, the truthfulness of PW/2- Kishnaram is highly
doubtful and not reliable.
11. PW/3- Hariram is eyewitness to the incident and is near
relative of complainant- Binjaram. He in his examination-in-
chief has stated that all the six accused entered into the
house of Binjaram and started abusing him and Kishnaram
slaped Binjaram. In his cross examination, he further
admitted that he did not see that Kishnaram slapped
Binjaram because he arrived after the incident and he also
did not see any spate between the other accused and
complainant- Binjaram, thus the evidence of PW/3 is
contradictory and also not reliable.
12. PW/4- Birdaram is also an eye witness. He has
accepted that apart from Kishnaram other accused did not
abuse Binjaram. In his examination-in-chief he has stated
that all the accused persons abused Binjaram and assaulted
him, thus the evidence of PW/4- Birdaram is not reliable and
[2023:RJ-JD:41304] (5 of 6) [CRLR-942/2004]
it is unsafe to held that accused non-petitioner Nos.2 to 7
assaulted Binjaram and abused him with words like Dhedh,
Neech etc.
13. PW/6- Kishnaram Jat is also an eye witness and has
totally denied the prosecution story regarding any altercation
between the complainant and the non-petitioner Nos.2 to 7.
14. PW/7- Binjaram is complainant and in examination-in-
chief, he has supported the prosecution story and stated that
all the accused assaulted him and Kishnaram slapped him. In
his cross examination though he has denied that he took
Kishnaram's Jeep on rent and did not pay the rent amount.
The evidence of Binja Ram is also inconsistent and contrary
to other witnesses.
15. The learned trial court while pointing out various
anomalies & contradictions in the statements recorded in the
court and the statements rendered before the investigation
officer arrived at the conclusion that there is delay in lodging
the FIR and there is no plausible explanation regarding the
delay. The trial court has also recorded that the evidence of
eye witness is not reliable. Learned trial court has thoroughly
appreciated the versions of all the witnesses and recorded its
finding by passing an acquittal order under Sections 143,
323/149 and 452 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST
Act, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment
passed by the trial court.
[2023:RJ-JD:41304] (6 of 6) [CRLR-942/2004]
16. Upshot to the above, this criminal revision petition is
devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Mohit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
