[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Dipika Gauri vs State on 16 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:53578]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 40/1997
Smt. Dipika Gauri W/o Shri Virendra Kumar, R/o Mahi Colony,
Banswara
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chakrawarti Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Judgment reserved on : 05/12/2025
Judgment pronounced on : 16/12/2025
1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC is
directed against the judgment dated 06.01.1997 passed by the
Court of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Banswara in Special Sessions Case No.61/1994, whereby the
appellant was convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months
alongwith fine.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.07.1994, an
altercation occurred between the appellant and Smt. Kiran, the
wife of the complainant Radha Raman. It is alleged that during the
said altercation the appellant used caste-based abusive words
within public view. On the basis of the report, an FIR was
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53578] (2 of 6) [CRLA-40/1997]
registered, the case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed.
The trial culminated in conviction as aforesaid.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the
impugned judgment, has raised the following submissions:-
3.1 That a bare perusal of the statement of PW-2 Smt. Kiran,
who is the wife of complainant PW-1 Radha Raman, would reveal
that the appellant never abused or insulted the complainant. PW-2
has categorically stated in her cross-examination that at the time
of the incident, nobody had come to the place where she was
standing and she was alone, and she subsequently narrated the
incident to her husband PW-1 Radha Raman and witnesses PW-3
Kamal Mathur and PW-4 Vidhya Ratan Bhatia.
3.2 It is urged that if this statement of PW-2, the sole eye-
witness, is objectively considered in its full legal genuineness, the
only inference that can be drawn is that PW-1 Radha Raman and
PW-3 Kamal Mathur were not witnesses to the incident at all, nor
had they heard any insulting words from the mouth of the
appellant.
3.3 It was further urged that PW-4 Vidhya Ratan Bhatia and PW-
6 Ramavatar have also been examined as eye-witnesses, but both
have resiled from their previous statements under Section 161
CrPC. Thus, they lend no support to the prosecution.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53578] (3 of 6) [CRLA-40/1997]
3.4 The further contention of learned counsel is that the learned
trial court has committed grave illegality in arriving at a finding of
guilt in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence. A careful
scanning and comparative evaluation of the statements of the
prosecution witnesses makes it abundantly clear that there are
material contradictions and variations, and that the so-called eye-
witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 are not witnesses of any credence.
3.5 That the learned Trial Judge overlooked these legal aspects
and proceeded to record a conviction, rendering the impugned
judgment unsustainable.
With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant
prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
and submitted that the judgment passed by the trial court does
not suffer from any error, illegality or perversity and the same is
based upon sound appreciation of the evidence available on the
record.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor, meticulously gone through the record and scrutinised
the evidence afresh.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53578] (4 of 6) [CRLA-40/1997]
6. It is true that PW-2 stated that she narrated the incident
later to PW-1 and PW-3. It is also correct that PW-4 and PW-6 did
not support the prosecution in entirety. However, PW-2 has
unequivocally deposed to the utterance of abusive caste-based
words by the appellant during the altercation. Her testimony
remains unshaken on the core allegation and has been accepted
by the Trial Court as truthful and reliable. The fact that PW-1 and
PW-3 reached after the incident does not demolish the prosecution
case, because the foundation of the conviction rests on the
evidence of PW-2, the direct witness, whose presence is
undisputed.
7. On overall appreciation of the material, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to discard the testimony of PW-2, and therefore
the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court calls for no
interference. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is
sustained.
8. However, on the question of sentence, significant mitigating
factors are present in the case at hand. The incident occurred in
the year 1994, more than thirty years ago, at a time when the
appellant was 33 years old and is now around 65 years of age.
She has no criminal antecedents either before or after the
incident, and the altercation arose from a trivial neighbourhood
dispute. In addition, the appellant has already undergone the
trauma of protracted criminal proceedings for over three decades,
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53578] (5 of 6) [CRLA-40/1997]
which itself is a significant factor to be considered in mitigation of
the sentence.
9. In such circumstances, the object of punishment would not
be served by now sending the appellant to prison. Courts have
consistently held that in old matters of this nature, where the
accused has led a law-abiding life thereafter, the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act may be appropriately considered.
10. While Section 19 of the SC/ST Act bars release on probation
of good conduct, the prohibition does not apply to admonition
under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Admonition
does not amount to release on probation, nor does it suspend the
conviction.
11. In this background and considering the totality of
circumstances, including the appellant's advanced age, the trivial
nature of the dispute, her lack of criminal antecedents, the
prolonged duration of the litigation, and the fact that she has
remained on bail throughout the trial, during the pendency of this
appeal, and continues to be on bail by suspension of sentence in
the present appeal, this court finds it appropriate to extend the
benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and
to release the appellant after due admonition. Further, in order to
safeguard her career and ensure that no stigma attaches to her
service or professional prospects, the benefit of Section 12 of the
Probation of Offenders Act is also extended, thereby ensuring that
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53578] (6 of 6) [CRLA-40/1997]
no disqualification, civil or service-related, shall attach to the
appellant on account of this conviction.
12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as recorded by
the trial court vide the judgment impugned is affirmed, but the
sentence of six months' simple imprisonment and fine is set aside.
The appellant is hereby released after admonition under Section 3
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Her bail bonds are
discharged.
13. In terms of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, no
disqualification shall attach to the appellant, and the conviction
shall not adversely affect her service, employment, or promotional
prospects.
14. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
15. The record be returned to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:56:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
