HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1210 / 2015

Bhagwana Ram son of Harchand, B/c Meghwal, aged 24 years, R/o
Aamli P.S.Sanchore, District Jalore

—-Appellant

Versus

1 Sonaram @ Chunaram son of Vadharam, B/c Purohit, R/o
Aamli, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore

2 Ganpat Lal son of Tulchha Ram, B/c Purohit, R/o Aamli,
Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore

3 State of Rajasthan

—-Respondents
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr Haider Agha
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
06/04/2017

This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being

aggrieved with the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by Special

Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Jalore (for short ‘the trial

court’ hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.33/2011, whereby the trial

court while acquitting the accused-respondents from the offences

punishable under section 354 IPC and sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)

(xi) of SC/ST Act has convicted them for the offences punishable

under sections 341 and 323 IPC, however, instead of sentencing

them, the trial court has granted them benefit of probation while

imposing fine of Rs.2500/- each upon them with a direction to pay
(2 of 3)
[CRLA-1210/2015]

the fine amount to injured Smt. Paru Devi and Harchand Ram

Meghwal.

The present appeal has essentially been filed by the

appellant with a grievance that the trial court has wrongly

acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences punishable

under sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

injured PW.3 Paru Devi and PW.12 Harchand Ram and other

witnesses viz. PW.4 Bhagwana Ram, PW.6 Achla Ram, PW.7 Pyari

Devi, PW.8 Sharda Devi in their statements have specifically

stated that accused-respondents abused the complainant and his

family members with casteist remarks in the presence of several

persons and from the said piece of evidence, it is clear that the

prosecution has sufficiently proved the charges against the

accused-respondents for the offences punishable under sections

3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act but the trial court without

properly appreciating the statements of the eye-witnesses has

illegally acquitted the accused-respondents for the aforesaid

offences.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused

the impugned judgment.

The trial court while considering the statements of the

eye-witnesses has specifically observed that almost all the

witnesses are the near relatives of the complainant or belonging

to the same caste. The trial court has also observed that as per

the prosecution story and the statements of the eye-witnesses,

several other persons of other castes were also present at the
(3 of 3)
[CRLA-1210/2015]

site, however, none of them has been examined by the

prosecution. The trial court has also taken into consideration the

statement of DW.1 Govind Ram, the then Sarpanch of the Gram

Panchayat, who has also specifically stated in his statement that

several other persons of different castes viz. Vishnoi, Rebari,

Luhar etc. were present at the site, however, none of them has

stated that the accused-respondents had abused the complainant

and his family members with casteist remarks. The trial court was

of the opinion that in the absence of any witness of other caste or

any credible evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the

charges against the accused-respondents to the effect that they

had abused Paru Devi, Bhagwana Ram and Harchand Ram with

casteist remarks.

After going through the impugned judgment, I am of

the opinion that when the prosecution has failed to prove

sufficiently that the accused-respondents had abused the

complainant party with casteist remarks or assaulted them

because they belong to SC/ST, the trial court has not committed

any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents from the

offences punishable under sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the

SC/ST Act.

Hence, there is no force in this appeal and the same is

hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

m.asif/PS