Allowed

Ram Kishan v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2016CRLA/111/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed S.B. Criminal Appeal convicting appellant under Atrocities Act and IPC. Court acquitted appellant due to failure of prosecution to prove intentional humiliation or use of criminal force as key witnesses turned hostile and medical report showed no injuries.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted; judgment of Special Judge Kota dated 30.01.1995 set aside; accused directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC.

Ram Kishan Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.111/1995

¶4

Ram Kishan S/o. Mangilal aged 44 years by caste Gujar R/o. Bad Gaon, P.S. Kunhadi, Distt. Kota.

¶5

...Appellant

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

State of Rajasthan.

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Date of Order ::: 14.09.2016

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr. Timan Singh, for appellant/s. Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P. for the State.

¶12

REPORTABLE - BY THE COURT:

¶13

The appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 30.01.1995 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Kota in Sessions case No.106/1993, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of Scheduled Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989) and sentenced to undergo six months

¶14

¶15

simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Appellant has also convicted for offence u/s 352 IPC and sentenced to undergo on month simple imprisonment.

¶16

In brief, the facts are that on 26.11.1992 at 12.30 a.m., complainant Ram Kishan submitted a written report (Ex.P3) before police stating inter alia that he belongs to Megwal (Scheduled Caste) community. On 25.11.1992 at about 11.30 p.m. when he was taking tea on the shop of Abdul Gani, appellant Ram Kishan came there riding on Luna vehicle and asked him in abusive language to remove his vehicle. When complainant was moving his vehicle, he told him Chamaria and rushed to beat him. When he tried to flee away, he restrained him and beat with fists & kicks. Somehow, he managed to get away from there. Dev Kishan Gurjar and Sikander Ali were there who have seen the incident. Formal FIR No.238/1992 (Ex.P4) was registered at police station Kunadi (Kota). After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Learned trial court charged him for offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act of 1989 and Sections 352 and 323

¶17

¶18

IPC. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. In all, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Five documents were exhibited. Appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereupon he stated the prosecution witnesses to be false and that he did not beat or abuse Radheshyam. Manglia (DW-1) was examined.and two documents were exhibited in defence. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment the appellant, as stated above.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the eye-witnesses Dev Kishan (PW-6) and Sikander Ali (PW-2) have turned hostile who were named in FIR. Prosecution examined Nanak Chand (PW-1) and Mukesh (PW5) also as eye-witnesses. They have also turned hostile. Statement of Radhey Shyam (PW-3) is not credible one. He reported in FIR and stated before trial court that he was beaten by kicks and fists and medical examination was also conducted. Prosecution has examined Dr. R.K.Sharma (PW-4), who conducted the medical examination of Radhey Shyam. He has stated that he did not find any visible injury on the body of Radhey Shyam. When he was complaining pain in abdomen,

¶20

¶21

he suggested sonograpy. Radhey Shyam (PW-3) has stated in statement that he did not get sonograpy done, whereas Dr.R.K.Sharma (PW-4) stated in cross-examination that on sonograpy, no injury was found in the abdomen.

¶22

Learned counsel further submits that Radhey Shyam (PW-3) was suggested in cross-examination that there is a dispute with regard to cultivation of land with Manglia, who used to get his land cultivated through appellant Ram Kishan on sharing basis. Though Radhey Shyam (PW-3) has denied any such fact, yet Manglia (DW-1), who was examined in defence, has corroborated this story and further he has stated that there is a litigation pending between him and Radhey Shyam. Thus, enmity has been proved by defence side and due to such enmity Radhey Shyam (PW-3) falsely implicated the appellant in this matter. Learned counsel has referred Kailash Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan 2003(1) WLC (Raj.) 401, Rupa Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2003(4) WLC (Raj.) 320 and M/s. Shree Agencies through its partners vs. Poonam Chand Banthis (deceased) through Lrs. 2004 (1) WLC (Raj.) 195.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that Dev

¶24

¶25

Kishan (PW-6) has corroborated the incident, though he has turned hostile with regard to fact of abusing by caste and otherwise. FIR was lodged immediately after the incident. There are no reasons to disbelieve the statement of Radhey Shyam (PW-3).

¶26

I have given thoughful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record.

¶27

As per written report (Ex.P3) there were two witnesses who saw the whole incident. Those two witnesses have been examined as Sikander Ali (PW-2) and Dev Kishan (PW-6). Sikander Ali (PW-2) states that he saw only a crowd and does not speak anything more about incident. Dev kishan (PW-6) states about the occurrence of the incident which happened with regard to parking of the vehicle but doe not corroborate the incident of beating or abusing by caste. He saw both of them only having hot talks. Both Sikander Ali (PW-2) and Dev Kishan (PW-6) were declared hostile .

¶28

Nanak Chand (PW-9) and Mukesh (PW-5) have also been examined as eye-witnesses by the prosecution. They have also turned hostile and states nothing about incident.

¶29

¶30

Radhey Shyam (PW-3), in his statement has

¶31

narrated the incident as it is mentioned in Ex-P3. He further states that he was subjected to medical examination. Sonograpy was suggested but he did not get it done. On the contrary, Dr.R.K.Sharma (PW-4) who medically examined Radhey Shyam, has stated that he did not find any visible injury on the person of Radhey Shyam. On complaint made by Radhey Shyam about pain in his abdomen, suggested sonography. In cross-examination, he stated that on sonograpy, no injury was found in the abdomen.

¶32

It is a sine qua none that intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, is to be made at any place within public view. Here in the instant matter, as per prosecution story the incident occurred at public place i.e. a tea shop. But none of persons present there, has stated that in their view, Radhy Shyam (PW.3) was intentionally humiliated or insulted. As such, charge under Section 3(1)(X) is not found proved.

¶33

So far charge of using criminal force is concerned, nobody has corroborated that appellant used any criminal force during the incident. Dev Kishan (PW-6) has stated that

¶34

¶35

both of them were having hot talk only.

¶36

Manglia (DW-1), examined on behalf of defence,

¶37

has stated that he and Radhey Shyam are having a land dispute. Some litigation is also pending between them. Appellant Ram Kishan cultivated his land on sharing basis. On cross-examination, he has denied that there must be some quarrel between Radhey Shyam and Ram Kishan with regard to the land of the wintess.

¶38

In view of the evidence rendered by defence and after going through cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution, the defence story of previous enmity cannot be accepted to be proved. However, since prosecution has failed to prove both the charges for which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by learned trial court, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶39

Therefore the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 30th January, 1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Kota is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 3(1)(X) and 352 IPC.

¶40

Keeping in view, however, the provisions of

¶41

¶42

Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused

¶43

appellant Ram Kishan is directed to forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme

¶44

Court.

¶45

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J.

¶46

Dheeraj/13

Ram Kishan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hanuman Prasad and Ors. Vs R S E B and Ors.

Mahesh Chand Modi Vs the Rajasthan State Cooperativ

Sushil Kumar Sarawagi Vs the Sub Registrar Co. Operative

Jai Ram Gurjar Vs State Medical and Healthors

Dashrath Singh Shekhawat Vs R P S C Ajmer

Jagdish Kumar Vs R P S C Ajmer andANR