Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Swaroop vs State And Ors on 21 September, 2011
In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench At Jaipur SB Criminal Revision Petition No.870/2001 Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan & others Date of order 21.9.2011 HON'BLE DR. MEENA V. GOMBER, J. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, for petitioner (complainant) Mr. Sanjeev Mahla, Addl. Govt. Advocate, for State Mr. Girish Khandelwal, for respondents
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (complainant) against the order of acquittal of respondent nos.2 and 3 of offences under Sections 323, 341, 325 read with 34 IPC.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner Ram Swaroop submitted a written report at Police Station Sikri with the facts that a day before the date of report, at about 6.00 p.m., when his wife Harpyari was making cow-dung in their plot, the accused persons Ratti Ram, Ram Singh, Amar Singh, Somoti, Tara etc., came and started abusing her, and when they were asked not to use abusive language, they all started blowing fists and slaps on her back and Ratti Ram (respondent no.2) & Ram Singh, gave lathi blows on her back. The petitioner, seeing Harpyari being beaten by accused persons, came along with his son Patram, Ramkhilari etc. and tried to rescue Harpyari, but the accused persons started beating him also and Ratti Ram inflicted injury by lathi on his left hand and Ram Singh gave a lathi blow on his back. Patram and Ramkhilari also sustained injuries inflicted by Ratti Ram, Ram Singh etc. by lathi. On hue and cry, Prakash (Harijan) and Bhajan (Sikh), came and saved them.
- 2 -
According to the petitioner, while going to lodge the report, he was asked by the village people not to lodge the report and get a compromise, however, the compromise could not be arrived at and when the accused persons threatened him, then only he went to lodge the report.
Case was registered for offence under Sections 323, 341, 325 read with 34 IPC. After usual investigation, the police filed challan. The learned trial court, after hearing the charge arguments, read over the charges for offences under Sections 323, 341, 325 read with 34 IPC, which were denied by the respondents and trial was claimed.
The prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, who alleged false implication and exhibited certain documents in their defence, stating that it was the complainant party who gave beatings to them and that they had lodged case against the complainant party.
The learned trial court, after analysing the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the respondents, beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has observed that despite having been given opportunities, the Medical Officers - Dr. Bhim Singh and Dr. Govind Singh were not examined. Other witnesse, being Ram Swaroop (complainant), his wife Harpyari, his son Patram, and also Ramkhilari, are all related witnesses, being
- 3 -
members of the family, and that there are material contradictions in their statements. Learned trial court also observed that the two eye witnesses - Prakash (Harijan) and Bhajan (Sikh), have clearly stated that there were altercations between both the parties, and in the defence the accused persons proved the documents showing that the cross case had been registered against the complainant party i.e. Ram Swaroop, Harpyari, Patram and Ramkhilari, at Police Station Sikri.
The learned trial court further observed that both the parties have registered cross cases against each other and then the injury reports of the injured persons have not been proved by examining the doctor and the radiologist, and for want of that, the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant party, cannot be said to have been caused during this incident. Moreover, there have also been found contradictions between the statements of Harpyari, Patram, Ramkhilari and other independent witnesses, with regard to the injuries sustained by the complainant side, and accordingly, the learned trial court arrived at the finding of acquittal of the accused persons.
I have carefully analysed the statements of the prosecution witnesses as also the fact that the incident occurred on account of altercations between the two women and that there are cross cases registered against each other. Moreover, non examination of Medical Officers and the Radiologist, adversely affects the case of complainant.
- 4 -
Having gone through the entire record, I am of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in passing the order impugned.
There is no force in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J.
db [All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya PS