GAUTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur dated 20.12.1991. By this judgment, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 IPC and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_174_LAWS(RAJ)7_2016_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Aggrieved by the above said judgment of conviction, accused-appellant preferred the instant appeal before this court. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant that learned trial court has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that as per prosecution on 16.04.1991 complainant Shiva lodged a FIR at Police Station, Salumber about the incident. As per which on 15.04.1991 at 09:30 PM when the accused-appellant came and abused the complainant and started beating while using filthy language with regard to his caste-Balai. A case was registered against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial Judge while convicting the accused-appellant did not appreciate the prosecution evidence properly and wrongly convicted him for the said offences. It is further submitted that the incident took place on 15.04.1991 but the FIR was lodged next day i.e. 16.04.1991 but no reasonable explanation was given by the complainant about the delay in submitting report. On the sole ground of delay the whole case of prosecution can be thrown out. It is further submitted that all the witnesses are close relatives of the complainant. Therefore, their testimony seems to be in doubt. It is further submitted that accused-appellant used to purchase things from the shop of complainant and he was his regular customer. There was material improvements in the statement of complainant and there are some contradictions also between the alleged eye witnesses but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the witnesses in right perspective. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused-appellant may be acquitted from the above said charges.