Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Chandra vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:8033) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8033]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1415/2019
Dinesh Chandra S/o Kaluram Balai, Aged About 27 Years,
Padasali, P.s. Kelwa, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Mahendra Singh S/o Nohar Singh, By Caste Rathore
Rajput, R/o Padasali, P.s. Kelwa, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.).
3. Gopal S/o Ganeshlal, By Caste Parashar, R/o Padasali,
P.s. Kelwa, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.).
4. Vinod S/o Meghraj, By Caste Kothari, R/o Padasali, P.s.
Kelwa, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. JVS Deora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/02/2024
The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment dt. 28.08.2019 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,
Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 22/2017 whereby, the learned
trial court while acquitting the respondents No.2 to 4 from the
offence under Section 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/St (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, though convicted them for offence under Sections
341 & 323/34 IPC but granted the benefit of probation under
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
[2024:RJ-JD:8033] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1415/2019]
Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 15.06.2017, the
complainant submitted a written report before the SHO, Police
Station, Kelwa to the effect that on 14.06.2017 when he alongwith
his brother had gone to Bus stand for playing volley ball, at that
time, the accused persons while verbally abusing his brother, told
him that he can't play with them being belonging to a lower caste.
Meanwhile 5-6 other persons also came and started beating him
and his brother with sticks.
On this report, the FIR was registered and the police started
investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against
the respondents. Thereafter, charges were framed against the
respondents for offence under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 341, 323/34 IPC.
The prosecution in support of its case examined twelve
witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement
of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded but no
witness was examined on defence side.
After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the accused
respondents No.2 to 4 from the offence under Section 3(1)(s) &
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted
them for offence under Sections 341 & 323/34 IPC but granted
the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act vide its judgment dated 28.08.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court
below without going through the entire record and evidence
mechanically acquitted the respondents from offence under
Section 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
[2024:RJ-JD:8033] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1415/2019]
despite the fact that the complainant Dinesh Chandra and his
brother Ram lal have specifically stated that the accused
respondents abused them using caste oriented language in a
public place and also caused injuries to them. Though the learned
trial court convicted the respondents for offence under Section
341, 323/34 IPC but granted benefit of probation to the
respondents. It is submitted that the witnesses have corroborated
the prosecution story and have categorically stated that the
accused respondents had assaulted the injured, therefore,
adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the
respondents but the court has adopted a lenient view without any
valid reason. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and
the accused may be adequately punished for the alleged offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State supported the arguments made by counsel for
the appellant.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent accused vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and
submitted that learned trial court Court has rightly acquitted the
respondents from offence offence under Section 3(1)(s) & 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through
the material on record.
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the
learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has
convicted the accused respondents for offence under Sections
[2024:RJ-JD:8033] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1415/2019]
341, 323/34 IPC on the basis of statement of the witnesses so
also the injury report of injured. The courts below came to the
conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused
respondents for offence under Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused by
adducing independent witnesses. Further, looking to the fact that
there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents, the
court has granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. In the opinion of this Court, the
findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is
no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal
appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
201-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
