MOHAMMAD SALMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is preferred by appellant accused aggrieved from order dtd. 25/1/2023 in Sessions Case No. 126/2022 arising out of FIR No. 279/2022 registered at P.S. Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City (East) whereby learned Special Judge [SC/ST (POA) Act Cases], Jaipur Metro-I had framed charges under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 307/149 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the sole injured in the case is Rahul and his injury report along with X-ray report is available on record which clearly indicated that injuries No.1 to 4 were found to be simple in nature and caused by blunt object whereas opinion was reserved with respect to injury No.5 and ultimately same was opined as simple in nature. He submitted that in case of simple injuries charge under Sec. 307 IPC cannot be framed by learned trial court but learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that not a single iota of evidence is available to substantiate the charge under Sec. 307 IPC. He further submitted that appellant was not aware about the fact that complainant was a member of SC community and even if assuming that he was from SC community, the so called word used and mentioned in FIR itself does not constitute offence under any of the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act. He further submitted that the altercations if any occurred, is between the accused and complainant and no person from public was there to witness or view the altercations between the appellant and injured. He further submitted that no case under SC/ST (POA) Act is made out and if offence under Sec. 307 is not made out then charge No. 7 and 9 were not made out. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Champa Lal Dhakar Vs. Naval Singh Rajput and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1931/2009). He further relied upon the judgments in cases of Dayanand Jat and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2017 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2127, Magha Ram Meghwal and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2017 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1352, Roopa Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2020 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 897, Sampat Punia Vs. State of Rajasthan 2016 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2169 and Sutta @ Tejuddin and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2013 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 781. At last, he submitted that respondent complainant is having a chequered history of cases against him, and there was no evidence to cause life threatening injury on injured.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. None present for respondent No.2, despite service.