Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bheru Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:21252) on 2 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:21252]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 53/1995
Bheru Lal S/o Bhura Jat, R/o Dabar, P.S. Akola, District
Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
02/05/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment dated 12.01.1995 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Pratapgarh
camp Chittorgarh, in Special Session Case No.48/1993 by which
the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as
under :-
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 447 IPC 2 months' RI ---- ---
2. 427 IPC 6 months' RI --- ---
3. 379 IPC 6 months' RI --- ---
4. Section 3(1) 6 months' RI Rs.500/- 2 months' S.I.
(v)(x) of SC/
ST Act
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 04.01.1993 complainant
Jani gave a written report before the concerned Police Station to
the effect that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and had a house
at Gram Panchayat Bhupal Sagar, where some Babool trees were
grown. On 02.01.1993 at about 9.00 accused-appellant
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:21:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:21252] (2 of 6) [CRLA-53/1995]
trespassed onto her property in Gram Panchayat Bhupal Sagar
and felled several Babool trees. Furthermore, the complaiant
stated that the accused- appellant subjected the complainanat to
abusive language during the incident. Based on this report, Police
registered a case against the accused-appellant and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the charges for offence under
Sections 447, 427 & 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of SC/ST Act,
were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellant, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as six 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, three witnesses
viz., DW/1-Kanwarchand, DW/2-Ramchandra & DW/3 Nathulal
were examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 12.01.1995 convicted and sentenced
the accused-appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this
criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecution has failed to establish the elements of an offence
under Section 379, 427 IPC so also Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. It is argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the offence under Section 379, 427 IPC against the
petitioner. The prosecution case is solely based on the statement
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:21:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:21252] (3 of 6) [CRLA-53/1995]
of complainant and Rami Devi, PW/3 who is daughter of
complainant. Thus, these witnesses are interested witnesses and
their testimony is not trustworthy at all. Another witness is PW/2
Bheru lal is only hearsay witness to whom the complainant
allegedly narrated the incident and this witness has only stated
what was told by the complainant. So far as the offence under
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the
complainant’s testimony does not indicate that the appellant used
abusive language in a public place with the intent to humiliate her.
The counsel highlighted the statement of PW/1, Jani Bai, who
stated that the alleged abusive language was hurled in her field
(Bada) and no other person was present. It is argued that a
private field does not constitute a public place, and further, PW/1
did not explicitly state that the appellant’s intention was to
humiliate her. Furthermore, the counsel points to the testimony of
PW/2, Bheru Lal, who stated that the complainant reported that
appellant had uprooted Babool tree from her field but did not
mention use of any abusive language. Similarly, the statement of
PW/3, Rami Dholi, also lacks any mention of abusive language by
the appellant. On the contrary, the counsel emphasizes the
statements of DW/1 to DW/3, who unequivocally denied that the
incident, as alleged by the complainant. Based on this evidence, it
is argued that no offence under Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SC/ST
Act is substantiated against the appellant. Therefore, the
impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside and the
appellant may be acquitted from the offences.
Learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate General opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:21:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:21252] (4 of 6) [CRLA-53/1995]
learned AAG submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant 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.
This court finds that the evidence presented by the
prosecution is insufficient to sustain convictions under Sections
427 and 379 of the IPC. Specifically, the testimony of PW/1, Jani,
regarding the alleged incident of the accused attempting to cut
Babool tree and using abusive language, lacks a crucial element
for the charge of using abusive language with intent to humiliate.
While she testified to the use of abusive language, she did not
establish that this language was uttered with the specific intention
of causing humiliation, which is a necessary component for certain
offences. Furthermore, the testimonies of PW/2, Bherulal, and
PW/3, Rami, are viewed with caution due to their status as heard
and interested witnesses, respectively. Legal principles dictate 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 appellant, a fundamental tenet of
criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the court is not inclined to
uphold the convictions for the offences under Sections 427 and
379 IPC.
So far as offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this Court’s decision on the
IPC offences has a direct bearing. Since the underlying offences
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:21:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:21252] (5 of 6) [CRLA-53/1995]
under Sections 427 and 379 IPC have not been established
beyond a reasonable doubt, the basis for a conviction under
Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which often relates to offences
under the IPC committed by members of non-SC/ST communities
against members of SC/ST communities, is significantly
weakened. The benefit of the doubt, as previously discussed, must
ultimately be given to the accused in this context as well.
Furthermore, concerning the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act, which pertains to intentional insult or intimidation with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view, the prosecution has failed to
discharge its burden of proof. A critical requirement for a
conviction under this section is that the alleged act must have
occurred “in public view.” In the present case, the prosecution has
not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged act
of using abusive language or any other relevant conduct took
place in a location visible to the public or in a manner that would
constitute “public view” as interpreted by legal precedents. The
absence of this crucial element renders the charge unsustainable.
In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order of conviction dated 12.01.1995 passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases),
Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh, in Special Session Case No.48/1993
is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted
from the aforementioned offences while extended benefit of
doubt. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:21:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:21252] (6 of 6) [CRLA-53/1995]
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. the accused appellant 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
5-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:21:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link