Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sawai Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:23853) on 24 May, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:23853] (1 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4189/2021
1. Sawai Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
Rural Barmer, Barmer.
2. Narayan Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
3. Ran Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
Rural Barmer, Barmer.
4. Kump Singh S/o Shri Bindraj Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
5. Shaitan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
6. Mohan Singh S/o Kump Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
Rural Barmer, Barmer.
7. Chhug Singh S/o Kump Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police Station
Rural Barmer, Barmer.
8. Than Singh S/o Shri Kump Singh, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Village And Post Kanora, District Barmer, Police
Station Rural Barmer, Barmer.
9. Mishar Singh S/o Bhair Singh, Aged About 77 Years, R/o
Village And Post Bhalikhal, Tehsil Gudamalani, District
Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Jamta Ram S/o Shri Rukhba Ram, B/c Bheel, R/o Tejwo Ki
Dhani, Village Vishala, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Kumar, PP
Mr. Kaushik Dave
Mr. Vineet Dave
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
[2024:RJ-JD:23853] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021]
24/05/2024
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following
relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
on behalf of petitioners that this criminal misc. petition
may kindly be allowed and record of the case may
kindly be called for and the FIR No.94 dated 17.07.2021
lodged at Police Station Barmer Rural, Barmer for the
offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(r,), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act by the
respondent no.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside."
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are false. Learned
counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR clearly indicates
that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague,
having no basis and there is nothing available on record of the
case to show that the petitioners had any motive to commit the
alleged crime. Learned counsel further contended that there is a
version and a cross-version of the alleged incident which had
taken place on 16.07.2021 and therefore, the petitioners have
also filed an FIR having registration No.93/2021 against the
complainant party.
Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the alleged
incident had taken place at the time when the complainant party
were trying to encroach upon the land in dispute between the
parties along with a public way situated nearby to the Khatedari
land belonging to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that
there is not even an iota of evidence available on record to
establish that the petitioners have used casteist slurs/derogatory
[2024:RJ-JD:23853] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021]
words against the complainant within public view. With these
submissions, learned counsel thus prayed to quash and set aside
the impugned FIR No.94/2021, registered at Police Station Barmer
Rural, Barmer.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following
judgments as precedents in support of his arguments:-
(i) Manjindra Singh S/o Shri Nakshatra Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1225/2020, Decided on
19.04.2023.
(ii) Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand And Anr.: Criminal
Appeal No.707/2020, Decided on 05.11.2020.
Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant argued that the Investigating Agency after
conducting a thorough investigation in the matter have found, the
offences alleged against the petitioners to be sufficiently proved.
Learned counsel submitted that in the alleged incident which took
place on 16.06.2017, the petitioners have inflicted injuries upon
Madan, Parul Devi and Prabhuram with sharp weapons. The
factual report dated 24.05.2024 furnished by learned Public
Prosecutor is taken or record.
Learned counsel submitted that the allegation of using
casteist words in a derogatory manner, levelled against petitioners
has also been found to be correct. Learned counsel thus submitted
that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
This Court has heard considered submissions of both the
sides and have perused the record.
[2024:RJ-JD:23853] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021]
In the present case, there are allegations against the present
petitioners that on 16.07.2021, they unauthorizedly entered the
field of the complainant party with sharp weapons and inflicted
injuries upon Madan, Parul Devi, Prabhuram, Charnaram and
Hakimaram etc., in a pre-determined manner. One of the injuries
allegedly inflicted by the petitioners upon the complainant party is
dangerous to life. There are clear allegations against the
petitioners that they uttered casteist words in a derogatory
manner against the complainant party, knowing fully well that
they belonged to scheduled tribe.
Relevant portion of section 3(1) of SC/ST Act, 1989, reads as
under:-
"Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe,-
(a) to (q) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [not relevant to this
case]
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Schedules Cast or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view."
The key ingredient of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act
of 1989 would be the intentional insult or intimidation with an
intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule
Tribe. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in "in any place within public view". Hon'ble The
Supreme Court of India in the judgment rendered in the case of
Swarna Singh and Ors. Vs. State through standing counsel
and Ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 held that if an offence
is committed outside the building i.e. in a lawn outside a house,
[2024:RJ-JD:23853] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4189/2021]
and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane
outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a
place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is
made inside a building, but some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then, it would not be an offence
since it is not in the public view.
As per the impugned FIR, the casteist remarks/abuses were
used against the complainant party in an open field (Khasra
No.779/675) which could have been seen by anyone.
In the opinion of this Court, an offence has thus been
committed at a place within public view and merely because the
place of incident was a privately owned place, that would not
mean that the same will not come within the expression "place
within public view".
In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 341,
354 and 307 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v)
are prima facie made out against the present petitioners.
Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition filed under
Section 482 Cr. P.C., is dismissed.
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
279-TarunGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
