Lal Singh vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:5656)
2026 Latest Caselaw 1235 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lal Singh vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:5656) on 29 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:5656]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 508/1993

Lal Singh s/o Shri Nawal Singh, r/o Sovaniya, Tehsil, Bilara,
District, Jodhpur(Raj.)
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                      Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Adv.
                                  Assisted by Mr. Pradeep Bhakar
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi,AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

Reportable-

29/01/2026

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, the appellant assails the

judgment and order dated 06.12.1993 passed by learned

Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Cases, Jodhpur, in Sessions

Case No. 102/93, whereby the appellant has been convicted

under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The

impugned judgment is assailed as being illegal, arbitrary and

contrary to the facts and law on record, having been passed

without proper appreciation of the evidence and applicable

legal principles, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of

justice to the appellant.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (2 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

Facts of the Case

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.07.1993, the

complainant Shri Taja Ram, resident of Village Sovaniya,

Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, submitted a complaint before

the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate,

Bilara, alleging commission of an offence under Section 3(1)

(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said complaint was

forwarded to Police Station Bilara under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C., whereupon FIR No. 272/93 was registered on

07.08.1993. It was alleged that on 25.07.1993 at about 9:00

a.m., while the complainant was proceeding on foot near

Pichhka Kuwa, the accused-appellant Lal Singh obstructed

his way, abused him by uttering caste-related derogatory

words including "Dhedh", and assaulted him with fists and

blows, thereby humiliating him in public view. It was further

alleged that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste,

whereas the accused is a member of an upper caste, and

that despite the complainant's attempt to lodge a report on

26.07.1993, no action was taken by the police, compelling

him to approach the Court.

3. Upon investigation, the police prepared the site plan and

other relevant documents, recorded statements of witnesses,

and filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for

offences under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the

SC/ST Act before the learned Magistrate, who committed the

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (3 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

case to the Special Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The

prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the

complainant. The accused-appellant denied the charges and

took the defence that the complaint was falsely lodged due

to a monetary dispute, as the complainant allegedly owed

him money and, upon being asked to repay the same,

implicated him falsely. However, after appreciation of the

evidence on record and hearing the parties, the learned Trial

Court convicted the accused-appellant under Section 3(1)(x)

of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to six months' simple

imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default thereof,

to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment, giving

rise to the present appeal.

4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone

through the materials available on record.

5. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration upon the

rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and has meticulously perused the entire evidence

available on record, both oral and documentary.

6. PW-1 deposed that PW-9 Hathi Ram had accompanied him

from his house and was present throughout. However, he

candidly admitted that this fact was not recorded in his

complaint and that he could not furnish any explanation as

to why such a vital fact was omitted. The omission of a

material circumstance relating to the presence of an alleged

eye-witness in the earliest version creates a serious dent in

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (4 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

the prosecution story and raises a legitimate doubt regarding

subsequent embellishment.

7. PW-1 also admitted that the accused-appellant Lal Singh

does not own a flour mill and that the flour mill belongs to

his brother, with whom Lal Singh lives separately. This

admission assumes significance in light of the defence

version as well as the testimony of PW-9, which suggests

that the dispute arose over alleged milling charges. The

inconsistency between the complainant's denial of any

monetary dispute and the evidence emerging from other

witnesses substantially weakens the prosecution case.

8. PW-1 denied the defence suggestion that the case was

instituted due to a monetary dispute relating to Rs. 150/-.

However, this denial stands contradicted by the testimony of

PW-6 Aidan Ram, the Investigating Officer, who admitted

during cross-examination that there existed a dispute

between the parties with respect to money transactions. This

admission by the Investigating Officer lends considerable

support to the defence version and introduces a plausible

motive for false implication.

9. PW-2 Gangaram, a prosecution witness, categorically stated

that he was not present at the time of the incident, did not

witness any quarrel, and was not informed about the

occurrence by anyone. Significantly, this witness was neither

declared hostile nor disbelieved by the prosecution. His

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (5 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

testimony, therefore, goes unchallenged and clearly does not

advance the prosecution case.

10.PW-3 Jogaram and PW-5 Tulcharam are merely formal

witnesses, whose role is confined to signing memos. They did

not depose anything regarding the occurrence of the alleged

incident and, therefore, do not provide any substantive

corroboration to the complainant's version.

11.PW-4 Ghevar Ram stated that the complainant Teja Ram,

PW-9 Hathi Ram, and he himself were together at the

relevant time. However, he unequivocally stated that he did

not see the accused and the complainant quarrelling or

fighting. This witness was produced by the prosecution and

was not declared hostile. In the absence of any challenge to

his credibility, there exists no justification to discard his

testimony. Rather, his statement directly negates the

occurrence of the incident in the manner alleged.

12.PW-6 Aidan Ram, the Investigating Officer, admitted the

existence of a monetary dispute between the parties. This

admission assumes great relevance, particularly when read in

conjunction with the defence version and the testimony of

PW-9, and it further erodes the prosecution case of a

spontaneous caste-based offence.

13.PW-7 Shiv Lal and PW-8 Bhaguram are witnesses of formal

arrest only and their testimonies do not touch upon the

occurrence or any ingredient of the offence alleged. Their

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (6 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

evidence is purely procedural in nature and does not aid the

prosecution in proving the charge.

14.PW-9 Hathi Ram, projected as a crucial witness, introduced a

completely different narrative. He stated that the incident

occurred on 24.07.1993 near a public well (Sarvajanik Kuwa),

whereas the typed complaint and prosecution case

consistently assert that the incident occurred on 25.07.1993

near Pichhka Kuwa. The discrepancy regarding both the date

and place of occurrence is material and not minor. Such

contradictions go to the very foundation of the prosecution

case and cannot be brushed aside as trivial inconsistencies.

15.PW-9 further stated that the accused demanded milling

charges from the complainant, to which the complainant

replied that he would inquire from his wife and pay if the

amount was due, following which a dispute ensued. This

version clearly establishes a monetary dispute as the genesis

of the quarrel and does not support the allegation of

intentional caste-based humiliation as contemplated under

Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

16.On a cumulative assessment of the testimonies of PW-1 and

PW-9, it emerges that there are multiple and irreconcilable

inconsistencies regarding the place, date, cause, and manner

of the alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to produce

any independent witness who corroborates the essential

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (7 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

ingredients of the offence, particularly the requirement of

intentional insult on the ground of caste in public view.

17.Another glaring infirmity in the prosecution case is the

unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The alleged incident is

stated to have occurred on 25.07.1993, whereas the FIR

came to be registered only on 07.08.1993, after a delay of

nearly 13 days. The complainant admittedly did not approach

the police immediately and instead moved the Court under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after deliberation. No satisfactory

explanation has been furnished for this inordinate delay,

which assumes significance in a case resting solely on oral

testimony and alleged utterances.

18.It is also apposite to note that the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a special

statute enacted with the avowed object of preventing

atrocities and humiliation of members of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A conviction under Section 3(1)

(x) of the Act cannot be sustained unless the prosecution

establishes, through cogent and reliable evidence, that the

alleged insult or intimidation was intentionally directed

against the victim because he belonged to a Scheduled Caste

or Scheduled Tribe, and not on account of any personal, civil,

or monetary dispute. Upon an overall appreciation of the

evidence on record, it clearly emerges that the parties are

residents of the same village and were engaged in routine

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (8 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

social and commercial interactions. The prosecution evidence

itself discloses that the genesis of the dispute was the

demand and non-payment of flour milling charges. When

daily interaction at a flour mill is admitted, it becomes difficult

to infer the existence of caste-based untouchability or

deliberate humiliation on that ground alone. In the absence of

clear proof that the alleged words or conduct were aimed at

humiliating the complainant because of his caste, the

essential ingredient of "atrocity" as contemplated under the

Act remains unfulfilled. Mere use of abusive language or a

quarrel arising out of a monetary transaction, even if proved,

does not ipso facto attract the rigours of the SC/ST Act unless

the prosecution discharges its burden of proving intentional

caste-based oppression beyond reasonable doubt.

19.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish

the foundational requirement of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST

Act, namely, that the accused intentionally insulted or

intimidated the complainant on the ground that he belonged

to a Scheduled Caste, and that such act was committed with

the object of humiliating him in public view. The evidence on

record unmistakably indicates that the alleged altercation

stemmed from a monetary dispute relating to flour milling

charges and not from any caste-based animus. When the

genesis of the dispute is personal or financial in nature, the

mere fact that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (9 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

is insufficient to attract the penal provisions of the special

statute. Consequently, the conviction of the accused-

appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act cannot be

sustained in law, as the essential ingredients of the offence

remain unproved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-

appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

20.Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

learned Trial Court fell into grave error in appreciating the

evidence on record and in convicting the appellant. The

impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities and

results in miscarriage of justice.

21.The appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the instant

appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 06.12.1993

passed by learned Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Cases,

Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 102/93 is hereby set aside. The

appellant stand acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. As the appellant is already on bail, their

bail bonds are discharged.

22.However, in compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the

appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond of

₹40,000/- along with one surety in the like amount before

the trial court. The bond shall remain in force for six months

to ensure the appellants presence before the Hon'ble

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5656] (10 of 10) [CRLA-508/1993]

Supreme Court in the event a Special Leave Petition is filed

against this judgment and notice thereof is received.

23.The record be transmitted back forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J 2-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:23:37 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)