MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7-3-94, passed by the Judge, special court, S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the special court convicted the appellant for the offence under S.323, I.P.C. and granted him the benefit of S.4 of the probation of offenders act, 1958, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,000.00 and a surety in the like amount for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years.

(2.) Accused-appellant Mohan Singh, along with his wife Smt. Nirmala, was tried by the learned Judge of the special court for the offences under Ss.452 and 323, I.P.C. and S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-10-91, at about 5.00P.M., when complaintant Ratan Lal came out of his house along with his Advocate Shri Mehta in order to show him the site where the encrochment was made by the opposite party Mohan Singh, at that time Mohan Singh and his wife Smt.Nirmala were standing out-side their house. After ten to fifteen minutes of the departure of Shri Mehtaji, Advocate , Mohan Singh and his wife started hurling the abuses by saying ,?Rataniya, you despite being a member of lower caste, how you dared to make a complaint against him in the Electricity Board and the Municipality.? Mohan Singh, also, said that they are the persons of social status and will throw the dust, dirt, waste etc. in his house and will make a complaint against him and would see that he should be removed from the service. They, thereafter, threw the waste etc. in his house and , also, gave beatings to him by fist blows. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW 1 Ratan Lal, PW 2 Asu Ram, PW 3 Champa Lal, PW 4 Kunj Bihari, PW 5 Ami Chand, PW 6 Dr.M.P. Joshi and PW 7 Pankaj Kumar Singh and exhibited five documents. The accused, in their defence, examined DW1 Jugal Kishore and exhibited four documents. The accused pleaded alibi and stated that at the relevant time he was busy in connection with Family Welfare (planning) camp at osia being the Education Extension Officer posted in the panchayat samiti, osia. The learned Judge of the special court, after considering the evidence on record, disbelived the plea of alibi put-forth by the prosecution and the medical evidence and the appellant was convicted for the offence under S.323, I.P.C., but however, he was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant for the offences under Ss.452, I.P.C. and S.3(1)(x)of the Act, 1989, but instead of passing any order of sentence, granted the benefit of S.4 of the probation of offenders act as started at the very out-set. The learned Judge of the Special Court, however, acquitted Smt.Nirmala of all the offences, for which she was charged and tried. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 7-3-94, passed by learned trial court, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was busy in the Family Welfare (planning) Camp, which was held on 10-10-91, at osia and his presence at the scene of the occurrence on the same day at 5.00p.m. was, therefore, not possible and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on account of inimical and strained relations between the accused -appellant and the complainant. His further submission is that the witnesses, produced by the prosecution, are highly interested witnesses and they do not inspire confidence. Alternatively it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the appellant has been given the benefit under S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act but the order regarding removal Of the disqualification clause, attaching to conviction, has not been passed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the necessary order under S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is required to be passed. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. Balot learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have supported the judgment passed by the Court below and have submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and the appellant has been rightly convicted. It has, also, been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that language of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act suggests that the benefit of S. 12 of the Act is not applicable where the appellant has been anted the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of offenders Act and it is applicable only in the cases when he benefit has been given only reader S. 3 of the Act.