GAURAV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by appellants aggrieved from order of charge dtd. 4/2/2023 in Sessions Case titled as State Vs. Saurabh Gupta arising out of FIR No. 679/2020 Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South), passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act cases Jaipur Metropolitan-1.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no material available on record to justify charge framed against the present appellants. He further submitted that appellant and complainat both were neighbours and only on the basis of member of community, complainant misused the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act, and falsely implicated the present appellant. He further submitted that from the statements as recorded by Police during investigation, it was indicated that except minor altercations no invident as reported by complainant in the matter was proved. He further submitted that the complainant had on exaggerated facts, registered a false complaint. He further submitted that the language as reproduced in FIR clearly indicated that at the most, the word allegedly used by present appellant was "Dhobhi" and same was never considered as abusive or casteist slur. He further submitted that there was no evidence which indicated that aforesaid incident took place at any public place or in public view, therefore, provision of Sec. 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act cannot be attracted in the matter. He further referred the statement of complainant, wherein he alleged involvement of other persons, but same was not found proved. While relying on similar statement of independent witnesses, he further submitted that there was neither mention of any fact of assault nor use of abusive language confirmed. He further submitted that there was neither mention of nay fact of assault nor use of abusive language confirmed. He further submitted that the incident of 15/11/2020 was reported to Police on 5/12/2020 and there was no explanation for delay. He further referred the injury report to submit that the injuries might be self inflicted as there was delay of three to seven days, reported by the Medical Jurist. He further submitted that it was just a concocted story to frame present appellants. While referring the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 12 SCC 531 and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2023 SCC online (SC) 668, he submitted it is required to be proved that the utterance, if any amde by the appellants must have taken place in a place within public view to attract the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act. He further submitted that there was no intention or mens rea as found proved from the statement of witnesses and Hon'ble supreme Court had quashed the proceedings initiated under the SC/ST(POA) Act. He further referred and relied on E.K. Nayanarv Vs. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan, 1997 SCC Online (Kerala) 44. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and also by learned Counsel for the complainant. Learned Counsel for the complainant while relying upon the conclusion drawn by the Investigation Officer submitted that a video footage was produced during investigation wherein the incident was corroborated and on the basis of this video footage, it was also established that Hammer was found with Saurabh Gupta and bat with Gaurav Gupta. He further submitted that injured and other witnesses who were available on spot had clearly corroborate the incident as reported by the complainat. He further submitted that the entire incident was carries out with intent to humiliate complainant and his family on public street by the appellants, therefore, judgments cited by present appellants are not applicable in the matter. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record along with the judgments, as cited by learned Counsel for the appellants.

(3.) Miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.