Dismissed

Dharamveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CRLLA/51/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed an S.B. Crim. Leave to Appeal. The appellant challenged the acquittal under the SC/ST (PoA) and conviction under the IPC regarding an assault incident. The court confirmed the lower court's acquittal as the alleged insult was not proved to have occurred in public, but upstood the conviction and probation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal leave to appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment acquitting under SC/ST Act and convicting under IPC with probation was confirmed.

Dharamveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:648]

[CRLLA-51/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 51/2022

¶6

Dharamveer Singh S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Kaman, Teh. Rajgarh Dist. Churu.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

Indrajeet S/o Gordhan, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Kaman, Teh. Rajgarh Dist. Churu.

¶11

Jaswant Singh S/o Gordhan, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Kaman, Teh. Rajgarh, Dist. Churu.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tarun Dhaka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶15

Order

¶16

05/01/2024

¶17

The present criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.11.2018, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in Special Sessions Case No.45/2014 whereby learned trial Court acquitted the accused- respondents from the offence under Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 341, 323/34 IPC and gave benefit of probation to them.

¶18

Counsel for the appellant submits that three persons received injuries in this incident and there is clear evidence against the accusedrespondents that they have used abusive language against the present

[2024:RJ-JD:648]

[CRLLA-51/2022]

(2 of 3)

appellant, who is the complainant. However, trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted them for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC only. Counsel argued that learned trial Court has not given adequate sentence to them and gave benefit of probation to them. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment dated 01.11.2018 may kindly be quashed & set aside and case may be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh judgment.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant perused the impugned judgment as well as material available on record.

¶24

According to the injury report of injured, Smt. Roshni received three injures which were found to be simple in nature. Similarly, as per report of injured Sunil, he was only having pain in his back. Smt. Sonu also did not receive any injury and she had pain in her skull. Smt. Sumitra received one injury, which has been found to be simple in nature. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has convicted the accused respondents on the basis of statement of the witnesses so also the injury report of injured. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, looking to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents, the trial court has granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. So far as the acquittal of respondents under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, it is necessary that insult or humiliation of a member of scheduled caste should take place within public view. Since no independent witness corroborated the prosecution story with

[CRLLA-51/2022]

[2024:RJ-JD:648]

(3 of 3)

regard to the alleged words uttered to him by accused respondent, therefore, it could not be proved that he was insulted or humiliated in any manner before the public. Hence, the findings of the learned Special Judge, by which he acquitted accused respondents of the charges for offence under Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are liable to be confirmed as the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondents have committed the alleged offence knowing that the complainant belonged to Schedule Caste/tribe.

¶29

After considering the evidence on record, this court is of the opinion that the appellant court has not committed any error in convicting the accused respondents and granting benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal leave to appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Record of trial Court be sent back immediately.

¶32

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶33

43-raksha/-

Dharamveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Nitesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Daya Ram and Ors. Vs State

Smt. Garima Khuntwal Vs Deepak Khuntwal

Banwari Lal Vs State

Pramod Vs State

Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan