Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rekha W/O Shri Kailash Chidiwalaged B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ... on 14 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:22954]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 2/2019
Rekha W/o Shri Kailash Chidiwalaged, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Vill. Daulatkhera Ps Mangliyawas Dist. Ajmer Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP, Raj.
2. Ali S/o Gani, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vill. Daulatkhera
Ps Mangliawas Dist. Ajmer Raj.
3. Akbar S/o Gani, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vill.
Daulatkhera Ps Mangliawas Dist. Ajmer Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar with
Ms. Renu Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
14/05/2025
1. Instant Leave to Appeal is preferred by appellant-
complainant aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 05.09.2018 in sessions case No. 13/2017 passed by learned Special Judge [(SC/ST) POA Act] Cases, Ajmer whereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted from charge under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. Learned counsel for appellant-complainant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that on 15.04.2011, the appellant- complainant has filed complaint in police and after investigation, the police in connivance with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had closed (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:00:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22954] (2 of 6) [CRLLA-2/2019] the matter but the Trial Court has taken cognizance and summoned respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant- appellant was examined as PW-3 and not only she but other witnesses have also supported the case of complainant and the Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of appellant-complainant and acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the charge. He also submitted that the incident was happened in area within public view but the Trial Court has misconstrued the provision and acquitted the respondents from charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. He also submitted that the act committed by respondents were proved from the evidence of prosecution and the Trial Court has acquitted the respondnts without a cogent reason. He also placed reliance upon judgment in case of Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs State Through Standing Council and Anr. AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 441 = (2008) 8 SCC 435.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for appellant.
5. On basis of complaint Ex. P.1 filed by appellant-complainant about incident of 13.04.2011, FIR No. 64/11 was registered at P.S. Mangliawas Dist. Ajmer on 15.04.2011. After investigation, police has filed a closure report (FR) with observation that the complaint is false. After protest petition and further statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and witnesses Kan Singh, and Kailash under Section 202 Cr.P.C., an order of cognizance was (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:00:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22954] (3 of 6) [CRLLA-2/2019] passed on 16.07.2011. After summoning the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, charges were framed against them. The prosecution has examined five witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have exhibited one document Ex.D-1. Learned Trial Court after considering the material has acquitted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from charge under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
6. In case of Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs State Through Standing Council and Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that this is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and nobody's feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its basic feature. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the word `Chamar' when addressing a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the `Chamar' caste, because use of such a word will hurt his feelings.
7. In case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttrakhand AIR 2020 SC 5584 while considering the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that insult or intimidation to a person belongs to SC/ST community should not be considered as an offence under the act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belongs to SC/ST. The Court has considered the judgment in case of Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs State Through Standing Council and Anr. (supra)and further drawn a distinction between a 'public place' and 'place within public view'. This issue was further considered by Hon'ble (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:00:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22954] (4 of 6) [CRLLA-2/2019] Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs The State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (Criminal) No. 1249/2023.
8. A perusal of record indicate that there was a delay of 2 days in lodging report to the police. During investigation, the villagers have filed a complaint Ex. D-1 for unnecessary harassment by husband of complainant in garb of exercising the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act. After investigation, police has closed the matter and filed a final report. Out of five witnesses examined by prosecution PW-3 is appellant-complainant whereas PW-2 is her husband and PW-2 is not an eye-witness. Similarly, PW-4 is not an eye-witness. PW-1 Kan Singh was posted as ASI whereas PW-5 (Dr. Pradeep Yadav) is a medical jurist. Herein, there is no witness to show that presence of particular witness, victim was insulted or intimidated.
9. The delay in such a matter is also a very important factor particularly when a representation Ex. D-1 is filed by villagers against husband of appellant. No person has corroborated the allegation of complainant and moreover, there were lots of discrepancies, which remained unanswered, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly drawn a conclusion of acquittal.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v.State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:00:15 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22954] (5 of 6) [CRLLA-2/2019] the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351, have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused.
12. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the judgment in case of Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs State Through Standing Council and Anr. (supra) is not applicable and the Trial Court has not committed any error as the order cannot be considered as perverse or illegal, therefore, instant leave to appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed.
(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:00:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22954] (6 of 6) [CRLLA-2/2019]
13. Accordingly, the instant leave to appeal preferred by appellant-complainant Rekha W/o Shri Kailash is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /80 (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:00:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)