Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajaram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Sanjay Karol
1
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.9 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13236/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-08-2023
in SBCRRP No. 883/2023 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For
Rajasthan At Jodhpur)
RAJARAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.211384/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )
Date : 16-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR
Mr. A. Renganath, Adv.
Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel would point out that in the FIR No.218/2020 registered at the instance of one Duda Ram, the petitioner was named as the victim Signature Not Verified of threat and beating, meted out during the Panchayat Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.10.19 Election. But this was a false allegation because of which Rajaram 17:25:40 IST Reason:
on 24.02.2021 filed an affidavit with the following averment:-
“1. That on Date 10.12.2020 I with my own wish voted in the 2 election of Pradhan in Rani Panchayat Samiti and casted my vote.
2. That there was no any pressure of any person on me and I was not threatened or frightened by any person. And I was not frightened by any person on the point of pistol or gun. And any beating has not been done with me and I have not been insulted by any person using case indicating words.”
2. The so called victim then approached the Special Judge for recording his affidavit to the effect that a false case is made out in the FIR but the learned Special Judge, Pali refused to record the statement of the petitioner under Section 164 CrPC. The High Court in revision then upheld the view taken by the Special judge.
3. The counsel refers to the ratio in Jogendra Nahak vs. State of Orrisa reported in 2000 1 SCC 272 to argue that High Court erred in holding that the statement of victims cannot be recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. Moreover, the refusal to record the statement of the victim under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also erroneous as Section 15 of the Act mandates recording of the victim’s statement.
4. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT] COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR