NURSING & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgments and the record of the case.

(2.) The petitioners herein were tried, convicted and sentenced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer for the offence under Sec. 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and were sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fence of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment. The petitioners preferred an appeal and the appeal came to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer and he too, by the judgment dated 2.12.1994, dismissed the appeal and up-held the conviction and sentence of the petitioners. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case the conviction of the petitioners is apparently illegal and is a result of misreading of the evidence by both the Courts below. He submits that as per the prosecution case, the incident in question took place on 20.2.1989, in which the members of the complainant party were allegedly treated with discrimination and in an insulting manner by the persons at the tea stall. He submits that a report of this incident dated 20.2.1989 was not filed immediately but instead thereof, an application was submitted to the District Collector, Barmer on 27.3.1989, on which the same was forwarded to the Police Station, Sadar, Barmer for investigation, where an F.I.R. was registered on 3.4.1989. It is submitted that even in this belated first information report, which was lodged after 42 days of the alleged occurrence, the first informant has not named-out any of the petitioners as being the persons who had hurled abuses or insults to the members of the complainant party. He, thus, submits that once even in the belated first information report, the identity of the accused was not disclosed then the subsequent disclosure of the names of the accused at the trial, would be of no worth whatsoever. It has further been submitted that at the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. The Investigating Officer was not produced for giving testimony at the trial and out of the six witnesses examined at the trial, none, apart from witness Kabira Ram PW-3 has given evidence regarding knowing the accused from before. He submits that Kabira Ram has also admitted that did not disclose the names of the accused in his statement recording during the course of investigation. Thus, it is submitted that merely on the basis of the improved version of the sole prosecution witness, the conviction of the petitioners cannot stand to scrutiny.