Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Megha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:4462) on 23 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4462]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1694/2024
Megha Ram S/o Sh. Chunni Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o
Chubakiyaagadh, Churu (Raj) (died on 16.04.2023 through
his legal representatives-
Mange Ram S/o Late Shri Megha Ram, Aged About 56
Years, Chubakiyaagadh, Churu (Raj)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Jagdish S/o Ganpat, R/o Chubakiyaagadh, Police Station
Siddhmukh, District Churu (Raj)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. KL Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
23/01/2025
Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act has
been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 03.09.2024,
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Churu in Sessions Case No.77/2018 whereby the learned
Judge acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence under
Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act but convicted him for
offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC and granted benefit of
probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
27.02.2018, complainant/appellant submitted a written report at
Police Station Sidhmukh to the effect that when he was returning to
home from the agriculture field, on the way, the accused-respondent
No.2 assaulted him and also abused with caste oriented language.
[2025:RJ-JD:4462] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1694/2024]
On the said report, Police registered a case against the accused-
respondent and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against
the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges.
The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eight witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused respondent was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 03.09.2024 acquitted the accused-
respondent from offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
Act, but convicted him for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC
and gave benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act. Hence, this
criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant argued that
learned court below has committed grave error in giving benefit of
probation to the accused-respondent for offences under Sections
341, 323, 325 IPC, despite the fact that the prosecution has proved
its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned court below also
committed error in acquitting the accused-respondent from offence
under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Counsel submits
that there is ample evidence available on record against the accused-
respondent for commission of offence. Yet, the court below did not
consider these aspects of the matter. Thus, it is prayed that the
accused-respondent may be awarded sentence for offence under
Sections 323, 341, 504 IPC and he may also be convicted and
[2025:RJ-JD:4462] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1694/2024]
sentenced for offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
Act.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the judgment of the trial court and also
gone through the entire record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case that the accused-respondent
intentionally abused the appellant with caste oriented language at a
public place. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent from offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST Act. The learned court below has also observed that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against
the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325
IPC and accordingly the court below convicted the accused-
respondent for the aforesaid offence. However, the court below while
considering the facts that this was the first offence of the accused-
respondent and he is an old person of 60 years and he has been
facing trial since long, has extended the benefit of probation under
Section 4 of the Act to the accused-respondent.
This Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the
impugned judgment and the same does not require any interference
from this Court. The appellant has failed to show any error of law or
on facts in the impugned judgment under challenge.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
130-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
