Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roop Lal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22433) on 8 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (1 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
[2025:RJ-JD:22433]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 106/1995
1. Roop Lal S/o Narayan
2. Chunni Lal S/o Narayan
3. Ram Lal S/o Lalu
4. Bagdi Ram S/o Ramji
5. Devi Lal S/o Roop lal
6. Balu Ram S/o Chunni lal
7. Shanker lal S/o Chunni lal
8. Bhanwar lal S/o Roop lal
All by caste Dangi, R/o Achoda, Police station Chittorgarh,
District Chittorgarh (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. Kuldeep Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
08/05/2025
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) IPC has been
preferred against the judgment dated 07.03.1995 passed by
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,
Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 183/92,
whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Offence Punishment
Section 3(1)(x) of the Six months rigorous imprisonment and fine
SC/ST (Prevention of of Rs. 200/-. In default of fine, to undergo
one-month S.I. each.
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (2 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
Atrocities) Act
Six months' rigorous imprisonment
147 IPC
Six months' rigorous imprisonment
342 IPC
One-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of
330 IPC Rs. 200/-. In default of fine, to undergo two
months' simple imprisonment
Two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine
365 IPC of Rs. 200/- each. In default of fine, to
undergo two months' S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The concise facts of the case are that a written report was
submitted by the complainant Bheru before the Dy.S.P.,
Chittorgarh on 03.10.1991 stating therein that on 01.10.1991, in
the night, the accused persons Roopa, Poona, Rama, Bhanwariya,
Deviya, Shanker, Balu, Bagdiya kidnapped his son Magni Ram and
pressurized him to confess a theft. The accused persons
threatened him, removed his clothes and assaulted him badly. He
anyhow escaped and told the complainant about the incident.
When the complainant confronted the accused persons, they
threatened him too of dire consequences.
The report was sent to the concerned Police station,
Chittorgarh and FIR No. 528/1991 was registered for offence
under Section 147, 365, 330 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After due investigation, police filed
charge sheet against accused-appellants for aforesaid offences.
Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed for offence under
Section 147, 365, 342, 330 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants denied the charges
and claimed trial.
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (3 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine
witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,
statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Three witnesses were examined on the defence side.
After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence
produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment dated
07.03.1995 convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated
hereinabove.
Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal before this Court.
During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.1 Roop lal,
appellant No.2 Chunni Lal and appellant No.3 Ram Lal expired and
the criminal appeal in respect of aforesaid appellants stood
abated.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the
learned trial court has committed a grave error of law in convicting
the appellants under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
conviction is patently unsustainable, as it is not founded upon
reliable or cogent evidence. The prosecution has manifestly failed
to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, as required
under criminal jurisprudence. It is argued that it was
complainant-Bheru and his son who were apprehended red-
handed while committing theft at the well of one Roop Lal. The
prosecution's case rests primarily on the testimony of PW/3, Tulsi
Ram, who claims to have witnessed the incident. However, his
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (4 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
credibility stands seriously undermined in cross-examination,
where he admitted that the accused Roop Lal had lodged a
criminal case against him which is pending. This clearly indicates a
pre-existing animosity, casting serious doubt on the impartiality
and veracity of his testimony. Furthermore, two other key
prosecution witnesses, PW/6 Ladhu and PW/7 Lal Singh, were
declared hostile, which significantly weakens the prosecution's
version of events. Their non-support of the prosecution's narrative
further demonstrates the lack of corroborative evidence necessary
to sustain a conviction. Learned counsel also harped upon
inconsistencies between the prosecution's story and the
statements rendered by the prosecution witnesses who reached
the place of the alleged occurrence. Another significant factor
undermining the prosecution's case is the unexplained delay in
lodging the First Information Report (FIR). While the incident is
alleged to have occurred on 01.10.1991, the FIR was not
registered until 03.10.1991. This inordinate delay of two days has
not been plausibly explained by the complainant. In the absence
of a satisfactory explanation, the delay creates a presumption of
deliberation, manipulation, or false implication. In light of the
above, it is respectfully submitted that the learned trial court
failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and erred in
both fact and law in convicting the appellants. The judgment
impugned suffers from a lack of judicious evaluation of material
inconsistencies, contradictions, and the overall unreliability of the
prosecution's evidence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence
imposed upon the accused-appellants under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act are liable to be set aside, as the same do not withstand
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (5 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
legal scrutiny and fail to meet the requisite standard of proof
mandated by law. Learned counsel for the appellants placed
reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of
Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P & Anr. Reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469.
So far as the other offences are concerned, learned counsel
for the appellants submits that the incident relates back to year
1991 and out of the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants
for a period of two years imprisonment, the appellants have
suffered incarceration of two days, therefore, without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the
present appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence
already undergone by them.
Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the accused-appellants and submitted that
there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and
learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the
accused-appellants. He prayed that the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Trial Court may be sustained and sentence
awarded to the accused-appellants by the learned Trial Court be
maintained by this Court.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
also gone through the entire record.
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act was enacted with a commendable objective: to
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (6 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
deter and penalize the commission of atrocities against individuals
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to establish
Special and Exclusive Special Courts for the expeditious trial of
such offences, and to ensure appropriate relief and rehabilitation
for victims. The Act embodies a legislative commitment to uphold
the dignity, equality, and security of historically marginalized
communities. Section 3(1) of the Act enumerates specific forms of
atrocities, categorised under sub-clauses (i) to (xv), which, when
committed against members of SCs or STs, constitute criminal
offences. These sub-clauses outline a wide range of reprehensible
acts, reflecting both physical and psychological forms of abuse.
Sub-clause (x) of Section 3(1) addresses acts that intentionally
insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe with the purpose of humiliating them in any public place.
Including this provision is essential because it recognizes that
psychological violence, such as insults and intimidation, can be as
damaging as physical violence, especially when aimed at
marginalized communities. Such acts serve to demean and
degrade individuals, reinforcing social hierarchies rooted in caste
discrimination. Public acts of insult and intimidation can also incite
communal tensions, leading to broader social unrest. Moreover,
criminalizing these acts acts as a deterrent, discouraging
individuals from engaging in behavior that undermines the dignity
and self-respect of SC and ST members. It underscores the state's
commitment to uphold human dignity and equality, ensuring that
marginalized communities are protected from the psychological
harm caused by targeted humiliation and intimidation in public
spaces. Ultimately, this provision aims to foster a society where
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (7 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
respect and dignity are upheld for all citizens, regardless of their
caste background.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State
Uttarakhand reported in (2021) 81 OCR (SC) 241 has
observed as under :-
"11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section
stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016.
The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r)
which reads as under:
"3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;"
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)
(r) of the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place
within public view".
In Swarn Singh & Ors. v. State, reported in 2008 (4)
RCR (Crl.) 74 (SC) it was held that for a public view some
members of the public should be there and they should not be the
relatives and friends of the complainant. In view of the same, the
expression "public view" has to be interpreted to mean that public
person present should be independent and impartial and not
interested in any of the parties.
Considering the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme
Court, it is observed that for an act to constitute an offence under
section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the alleged act must occur in
public view, ensuring transparency and preventing clandestine
acts. The Court has emphasized that the presence of impartial
witnesses who are not related to the complainant or victim is
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (8 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
crucial to establish the occurrence of the act openly and
transparently.
In the present case, the testimony of PW/1, Bheru Lal, who
is the complainant and father of the victim, and PW/2, Magni Ram,
the victim himself, is noted as interested witness. However, the
credibility of witnesses PW/3, Tulsi Ram, who claims to have
witnessed the incident, is seriously undermined during cross-
examination. PW/3 admitted that the accused, Roop Lal, has
lodged a criminal case against him, which is currently sub judice.
This establishes a clear pre-existing animosity and raises
substantial doubts regarding the impartiality and veracity of his
testimony. Furthermore, PW/4, Bheru, and PW/5, Dalu Gujjar, are
identified as motbir witnesses, but their testimonies alone do not
suffice without corroboration. PW/6, Ladhu, who was initially
heard as a witness, later declared hostile, indicating a lack of
confidence in his account. Similarly, PW/7 Lal Singh, also declared
hostile, further undermining the evidentiary value of witnesses in
this case. PW/8 Jagmohan Sharma, and PW/9 Dr. Umesh, being
the Sub-Inspector and the doctor respectively, do not provide
direct evidence regarding the occurrence of the incident in public
view. The independent witnesses of the locality have not been
examined by the prosecution despite the fact that various houses
were nearby the place of incident. This Court is conscious of the
stringent provisions as contained in the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and the legislative intent behind the said
enactment. Considering the totality of the evidence and the
circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the essential
ingredient of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act--that the alleged
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (9 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
act must have taken place in public view--is not fulfilled here. The
absence of credible, impartial witnesses and the existence of
hostile testimonies strongly suggest that the act was not
committed openly in public, thereby undermining the very basis of
the offence under the relevant section of the Act. Therefore, this
Court finds that the statements of the witnesses coupled with the
prosecution story, fail to prove the prosecution story beyond
reasonable doubt and thus, the benefit thereof would certainly go
in favour of the accused.
So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded to
the accused-appellants for other offences is concerned, it is not
disputed that the appellants have remained behind the bars for
two days out of out of the sentence awarded for a period of two
years rigorous imprisonment and has also suffered the agony and
trauma of protracted trial as the occurrence relates back to the
year 1991. Since the appellants have remained behind the bars for
considerable time so also undergone mental as well as physical
agony of protracted trial for last thirty four years, leniency can be
shown to some extent.
Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that
the appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time,
it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for offence under Sections 147, 365, 342, 330 IPC is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
Resultantly, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly,
the conviction of the appellant as recorded vide the judgment
dated 07.03.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh
[2025:RJ-JD:22433] (10 of 10) [CRLA-106/1995]
in Sessions Case No. 183/92 for offence under Section SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is quashed and set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him for
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
While maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence
under Sections 147, 365, 342, 330 IPC, the sentence awarded to
them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine
imposed by the trial court is not interfered with. Two months time
is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court, failing which
the appellants shall undergo the default imprisonment. Appellants
are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged on deposition
of fine.
Pending applications, if any, be disposed of.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
77-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
