Partly allowed

Ghishu Lal v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2017CRLA/803/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the condonation of a 208-day delay in the criminal appeal under the Limitation Act. The appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent in a case involving caste-based abuse and obstruction of forest officials was dismissed, as the trial court did not commit any illegality in acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed to condone the delay of 208 days. The criminal appeal against the acquittal was dismissed.

Ghishu Lal Vs State and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 803 / 2012

¶3

Ghishulal s/o Hariram Regar r/o Goraji Ka Nimbaheda, P.S. Kapasan, Dist. - Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶4

………..Appellant

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶7

Chandukhan s/o Mithukhan Musalman, r/o Dindoli, P.S. Rashmi, Distt. Chittorgarh.

¶8

………….Respondents

¶9

Counsel For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Sisodia

¶10

Counsel For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhayay, PP

¶11

Mr. Farzand Ali

¶12

Mr. Pankaj Choudhary

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

01/03/2017

¶16

The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is 208 days’ delay in filing the criminal appeal.

¶17

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not seriously been opposed by learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶18

After going through the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed and the

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

delay of 208 days in filing the criminal appeal is condoned.

¶21

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard and decided.

¶22

The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 3.8.2011 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Sessions Case No.36/11, whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 353 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’).

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the Police Station Rashmi has registered an FIR No.105/10 against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 186 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989 and started investigation. In the said FIR, one Gheesu Lal has alleged that when he along with other officials of the forest department was inspecting the saw mill of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 abused him with castiest remarks and also stopped the forest officials from discharging their duties.

¶24

The police after investigation has filed charge-sheet against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 186 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989 and the trial court has framed charges against the respondent No.2 for the aforesaid offences.

¶25

The prosecution has got examined as many as eight witnesses and the statement of the accused respondent No.2 was

¶26

(3 of 5)

¶27

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶28

The trial court after considering the prosecution evidence and the other material available on record has acquitted the accused respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 353 and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-8, it is clear that the respondent No.2 had abused the appellant with castiest remarks and also stopped the officials of the forest department from discharging their duties and from the said piece of evidence, the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 186 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989 are duly proved against the respondent No.2, however, the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused respondent No.2 from the aforesaid offences vide impugned judgment.

¶30

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have supported the judgment passed by the trial court and argued that the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent No.2 is guilty of commission of offence punishable under Sections 353 & 186 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the impugned judgment.

¶32

(4 of 5)

¶33

The trial court in its judgment has observed that in the alleged incident, two reports have been filed, one by Gheesu Lal (PW-1) and another by the ranger, Lal Singh (PW-2). It is observed that in Ex.P/1 filed by the appellant, though it is mentioned that the respondent No.2 has abused him with castiest remarks, however, in Ex.P/4 submitted by Lal Singh (PW-2), there is no mention that the respondent No.2 abused Gheesu Lal (PW-1). The trial court was of the opinion that when both the reports have been filed at the same time, then, it cannot be believed that in the report submitted by the ranger, Lal Singh (PW-2), there is no mention about the fact of abuse by the respondent No.2 to Gheesu Lal (PW-1).

¶34

The trial court has also examined the statements of all the witnesses and observed that all the witnesses have stated that there was an altercation between the respondent No.2 and the officials of the forest department, however, there is no evidence to the effect that any force was used by the respondent No.2 during the incident. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the incident took place in the premise of a saw mill and the said place cannot be termed as a public place.

¶35

Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 353 IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of the Act of 1989 when the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondent No.2 beyond reasonable doubt.

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

Hence, this criminal appeal being bereft of force is hereby

¶38

dismissed.

¶39

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.

¶40

ms rathore/1

Ghishu Lal v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghishu Lal v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devi Lal Vs State and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State and Anr.

Mohd. Firoj Vs Saira Bano and Ors.

State Vs Ramesh and Ors.

Subodh Vs State and Anr.

Sunil Vs State and Ors.