HC dismissed SCLA seeking to assail acquittal in an SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities case. The High Court held that the trial judge's appreciation of evidence was not perverse and held no interference warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 289 / 2016
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Phoolchand @ Phooliya
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order
02/02/2018
The present application for leave to appeal has been filed to assail the acquittal of accused respondent Phoolchand @ Phooliya, who was tried by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 29.4.2016 recorded acquittal of the accused respondent.
The prosecutrix (P.W.4-name withheld to protect her identity) in the court stated that about nine months before her deposition in the court, she in the midnight at 12:00 AM, had gone to ease herself, when accused along with Baje Singh gagged her mouth and forcibly carried her on motorcycle to the house of maternal uncle at village Dhamaniya, M.P. The trial Judge noted that the prosecutrix has deposed that the accused Phoolchand had taken her to the house of maternal uncle, where they stayed for two days. Thereafter, accused brought her to Bhilwara. There they
(2 of 3)
[CRLLA-289/2016]
also stayed for two nights. From Bhilwara, the prosecutrix was apprehended and was brought to police station. The trial court noted that the prosecutrix had admitted in her deposition that the report was written at the instance of her the husband. The trial Judge noted that the report in the present case was lodged at highly belated stage, i.e. after seven days. The trial court noted that from village Dhamaniya to Bhilwara, the prosecutrix and accused travelled in a bus and it was admitted by the prosecutrix that in bus number of persons were sitting. The trial court noted that inspite of opportunities available, the prosecutrix, who had travelled in a public transport, had not made any complaint to anybody. The trial Judge discarded the plea of threat given by the accused to the proosecutrix, not to narrate the incident to anybody, as an after thought and false explanation.
The trial Judge further noted that qua Baje Singh, the prosecutrix had not reiterated the allegations. The trial Judge also noted that as per initial version prosecutrix herself had left with the accused respondent.
Arjun Lal (P.W.2) in the court deposed that in the first version divulged by Sajjan Lal (P.W.5) husband of prosecutrix she had eloped. The trial Judge in Para 24 of the judgment noted that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The para 24 of the impugned judgment reads as under:-
geus mHk; i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;kA izdj.k esa ;g Lohd`r :i ls lkeus vk;k gS fd ihM- 2 vtqZuyky vfHk;ksD=h dk HkkbZ gS] ih-M- 3 jkeukjk;.k vfHk;ksD=h ds ifr lTtuyky dk HkkbZ gS] ih-M- 4 Lo;a vfHk;ksD=h gS] ih-M- 5 lTtuyky vfHk;ksD=h dk ifr gS] ih-M- 6 larks"kckbZ vfHk;ksD=h ds ifr dh cgu ,oa ih-M- 7 furs’k mDr larks"kckbZ dk iq= o vfHk;ksD=h ds ifr lTtuyky dk Hkkutk gSa bl izdkj mDr lHkh lk{khx.k ,d gh ifjokj ds lnL; gSA buds vfrfjDr vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ,dek= Lora= lk{kh ih-M- 1 jk/ks’;ke
(3 of 3)
[CRLLA-289/2016]
mQZ ';keyky tks fd vfHk;ksD=h ds edku dk iM+kSlh gS] ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS] ijUrq blus vfHk;ksD=h dks Qwypan }kjk ys tkus ds ckjs esa ugha lquuk vkSj blds }kjk vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k x;k gks] bl ckjs esa irk ugha gksuk dgk gS rFkk ;g Lora= lk{kh i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr gqvk gS ftlus izfrijh{k.k esa vius iqfyl c;ku izn’kZ ih- 1 esa vafdr rkfRod Hkkx dks iqfyl dks fy[kkus esa bUdkj fd;k gSA vU; dksbZ Lora= lk{kh vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls bl izdj.k esa ijhf{kr ugha djok;k x;k gSA
The view formulated by the trial Judge to record acquittal of the accused respondent is based on appreciation of evidence. The trial Judge has discussed the evidence led by the prosecution threadbare and had formulated a view which cannot be termed perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present application for leave to appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.
Mak/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal on facts and evidence appreciation in a Prevention of Atrocities case is perverse and warrants interference under Criminal Leave to Appeal.
State Of Rajasthan
Phoolchand @ Phooliya
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
