[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Banshi Lal And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23861) on 16 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23861]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 23/1996
1. Banshi Lal S/o Nanda Mali,
2. Mohan Lal S/o Onkar Gadri,
3. Santokh Nath S/o Daulanath,
4. Bheru Lal S/o Kanna Gadri,
All R/o Talaau, P.S. Dungla, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/05/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the judgment dated 20.12.1995 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Pratapgarh, in
Special Session Case No.24/1993 by which the learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 323 IPC 6 months' SI ---- ---
2. Section 3(1) 1 year's RI Rs.200/- 1 month's S.I.
(xiv) of
SC/ST Act
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.1990 complainant
Khyalilal gave a report before the concerned Police Station to the
effect that on 01.05.1990 at about 6.00 P.M. a marriage
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:30:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23861] (2 of 5) [CRLA-23/1996]
procession (Barat) was proceeding towards to Semlia. In the
midway some villagers approached and used abusive language
against the members of procession and also assaulted the
procession members by throwing stones at them. Based on this
report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellants and
some other persons and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the accused-appellants and some other persons. Thereafter, the
charges for offence under Sections 147 & 323 IPC and Section
3(1)(xiv) of SC/ST Act, were framed by the trial court against the
accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as ten witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses viz.,
DW/1-Chaturbhuj & DW/2-Bherulal were examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 20.12.1995 convicted and sentenced
the accused-appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this
criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
complainant and the material witnesses have already turned
hostile and only two witnesses have alleged that appellants
assaulted them, but during cross examination they also mentioned
that approximately 40 persons were present on the scene and that
they could not identified who inflicted the injuries. Based on this
evidence, it is argued that no offence under Section 3(1)(xiv)of
the SC/ST Act is substantiated against the appellants. Therefore,
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:30:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23861] (3 of 5) [CRLA-23/1996]
the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside and the
appellants may be acquitted from the offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned PP submitted
that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence
awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion or
sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced at bar and meticulously examined the impugned
judgment alongwith material available on record.
According to the statement of Bagdiram (PW/1), who is
injured in this case, has categorically mentioned that Santosh
Nath and Banshi Lal inflicted injuries upon him. However, during
cross examination he admitted that approximately 50-60 persons
were present at the place of occurrence. Additionally, he
acknowledged in his previous statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1) that he did not mention the name of Santosh
Nath and Banshi Lal, as the individuals who caused him injuries.
As per the statement of Vajeram (PW/3) he also mentioned in his
statement that he did not identify the accused persons; rather
Bagdiram was the one who provided him the name of accused
persons. As per the statement of Khyali Lal (PW/4), the
complainant reveals that, he is a hearsay witness who turned
hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly,
Keshuram (PW/5) is hearsay witness who mentioned in his
statement that Bagdiram informed him about the said incident.
Smt. Kala (PW/6), Bhagwan Lal (PW/8) and Ram Lal (PW/9)
turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Besides
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:30:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23861] (4 of 5) [CRLA-23/1996]
these witnesses, no other evidence has been produced on the
behalf of the prosecution. On the contrary, Chaturbhuj (DW/1) and
Bheru Lal (DW/2) were examined from defence side. They stated
that during the procession of marriage, which proceeding at that
time, approximately 50-60 Police Personnel were present, and no
such incident, as described by the prosecution, took place. Legal
principles establish that such testimonies, while admissible, are
not automatically presumed to be reliable and require
corroboration. In the absence of strong corroborating evidence,
the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused
appellants, which is fundamental doctrine of criminal
jurisprudence. Consequently, the court is not inclined to uphold
the convictions for the offences under Section 323 IPC.
So far as offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is
concerned. The principle of benefit of the doubt, as discussed
above, also applies in this context. Moreover, concerning the
charge under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the SC/ST Act, which
criminalizes acts that deny a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of
public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from
using or having access to a place of public resort to which other
members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or
access to, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of
proof. In the present case, there is no evidence against the
present appellants to connect with this offence. The absence of
such crucial element renders the charge unsustainable.
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:30:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23861] (5 of 5) [CRLA-23/1996]
Consequently, the court is not inclined to uphold the conviction for
the offence under Section 3(1)(ixv) of SC/St Act.
In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order of conviction dated 20.12.1995 passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases),
Pratapgarh, in Special Session Case No.24/1993 is hereby
quashed and set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the
aforementioned offences while extended benefit of doubt. The
appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged.
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. the accused appellants is directed to forthwith furnish
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and a surety bond
in the like amount before the learned trial court within a period of
one month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to
the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition
against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on
receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
The record of the trial court, if any, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
75-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:30:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link