JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2010 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charge for offences under Section 304, IPC read with Section 34, IPC against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, and the charge of Section 304, IPC against petitioner No. 4, and the charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against all the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) In brief, the fact of the case are that on 22-1-2010, the complainant, Inder Raj Singh, had lodged a written report with the Police Station Sadar, Jhunjhunu. According to the complainant, due to an old animosity, on 22-1-2010, the petitioners had abused the complainant on mobile. Thereafter, the petitioners came to his house and threw stones and bricks. When his father came out of the bathroom, petitioner No. 4 threw a brick at him His father was struck and died. Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners. Vide order dated 11-8-2009, the learned Judge has framed the charges, as mentioned above, against the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. S. N. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has strongly contended that the complainant has come up with an unbelievable story. According to complainant, Inder Raj Singh, there is an old animosity between the family of the complainant and the family of the petitioners. According to him, on the fateful day, the petitioners had initially called him on his mobile and had abused him with regard to his caste. At about 8.00 p.m., while the complainant and his family members were inside their house, the petitioners came to his house and started verbally abusing the complainant party with regard to their case. The father of the complainant, who was answering the call of nature, came out from the bathroom. Thereupon, the petitioners hurled stones at his father. According to the complainant, one of the cement bricks hit his father on his head, and his father collapsed. Subsequently, his father died. According to the learned counsel, the site plan clearly shows that the bricks and the stones were thrown from quite a distance. According to the post-mortem Report, the deceased had suffered a single injury on the head. Therefore, it is an unbelievable story that from some distance, Vinod, petitioner No. 4, aimed to hit the complainant's father on his head, and threw the brick. Moreover, it is unbelievable that they would have the knowledge that the complainant's father would come out from the bathroom and they will have an opportunity to hit him.