MST VIMLA D/O SHRI AMOLAK CHAND BY CASTE JAIN, RESIDENT OF PIDAWA, DISTRICT JHALAWAR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 26.9.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases, Jhalawar (for short the SC/ST Act ), in Sessions Case No.65/1994, whereby while acquitting accused Nemi Chand from all the charges levelled against him, appellants Mst Vimla and Smt. Shobha, each of them has been convicted and sentenced as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_30_LAWS(RAJ)10_2016.html</FRM> All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts are that Fakir Chand (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex.P-8) on 17.6.1991 before learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar alleging inter alia that he is holding a shop of Amolak Chand as a tenant from many years on rent of Rs.55.00 per month. Earlier the same shop was with his father Peeruji on rent at the rate of Rs.15.00 per month. Amolak Chand wanted to enhance the rent and otherwise asked to vacate the shop. On 1.6.1991 at about 11.00 AM when complainant was ironing the clothes, appellants Vimla and Shobha entered into the shop with an intention to beet him and forcefully get vacated the shop. They pushed the complainant out of the shop. Thereafter, they started throwing on road all the belongings of complainant lying in the shop. Amolak Chand and Nemi Chand were also there outside the shop to assist them. The complainant immediately went to police station and orally informed the SHO. What proceedings the SHO drew, he does not know. Meanwhile, Nemi Chand also reached there. He talked with the SHO - Hussain Mohammed and thereafter the SHO asked him to go back immediately to his shop otherwise people will take away all his belongings lying on the road. On this, complainant put his signatures on the papers, which were prepared by the SHO and immediately rushed to the spot and saw that Vimla, Shobha, Amolak Chand and Nemi Chand had shut the door and put their lock on the shop. On 5.6.1991, the complainant gave an application to Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar. On being frightened, he went away from village and remained busy in attending marriage in relations and now, he is submitting the complaint. On being forwarded u/s 156(3) Crimial P.C., FIR No.80/1991 was registered at Police Station Pidawa, District Jhalawar. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against Vimla, Shobha, Nemi Chand and Amolak Chand. During trial, Amolak Chand died. Appellants and Nemi Chand were charged by learned Trial Court for offences u/s 448, 352 Penal Code and section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. Appellants were examined u/s 313 Crimial P.C. They stated that they have been wrongly implicated in the matter. The evidence produced by prosecution is false. Appellant Vimla further stated that on the date of occurrence, she was working as Post Master at village Kotari and she was not present at the place of occurrence, rather she was on her duty. Appellant Shobha stated that she was at Pali on the date of occurrence. She was at her in-law's house and was not present at the place of occurrence. Three witnesses were examined in defence and six documents were exhibited. After hearing the parties, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment, whereby it convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned herein above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the occurrence is said to be of 1.6.1991. The complaint (Ex.P-8) presented before learned Judicial Magistrate is dated 11.6.1991, but has been presented on 17.6.1991. On the contrary, on the very day of the occurrence i.e. 1.6.1991 when complainant Fakir Chand rushed to the police station, SHO entered the incident as narrated by the complainant, in his daily diary and copy of which is Ex.D-3. As per this entry, Fakir Chand reported to the police station that at about 1.00 PM - two daughters of Amolak Chand came to him and asked to vacate the shop otherwise they would throw the clothes and other goods of complainant lying in the shop. The complainant requested them to grant 8 days time to search out some other shop. Meanwhile, Mahaveer Kumar Jain came there and he had a talk with two daughters of Amalok Chand and got the shop vacated and the complainant was given another shop of Amolak Chand on rent. He has apprehension that despite of that, both the girls may not throw away his clothes and other belongings from shop. Therefore, he has come to report. SHO has endorsed upon the information that the matter seems to be only of some hot talks pertaining to the shop, therefore, the complainant was advised to approach the court.