BHISHANLAL Vs. HARGOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the complainant against the impugned judgment/order dated 16-1-1999 of the aforesaid trial Court whereby it acquitted accused respondent Hargovind for offence under Section 3(1)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) The petitioner had lodged a complaint against the accused respondent on 26-3-1998 by a written report to the Superintendent of Police Sawai, Madhopur stating therein that Hargovind himself as well as his family members comprising of Jagdish s/o Prahlad, Dhanraj s/o Prahlad, Prahlad s/o Sonya, Dhapu w/o Prahlad, Dhanpal sb Prahlad had indulged in manhandling and had physically assaulted his mother in the agricultural field on the fateful day i.e. on 26-3-1998 at about 2 p.m. The circumstances resulting in altercation between his mother Jarali Devi w/o Hariram Bairwa r/o Bhagwanpura were of such a nature that while his mother was taking care of her fields, Hargovind (accused) arrived at the scene of occurrence alongwith cows which were let loose in the fields resulting in damage to the standing wheat crop, to which the complainant strenuously objected. Thereupon an altercation ensured resulting in exchange of abusive words at the instance of Hargovind and complainants mother. Since his mother had obviously protested over the conduct of the accused because his cow had caused damage not only to the standing crop but upon protest being raised by the complainants mother, bones of dead animal were forcibly thrusted into her mouth and thereafter wild abuses were hurled during hot exchanges between the accused and complainant's mother. Upon hearing hue and cry of his mother, the complainant immediately rushed to rescue of his mother and saved her from the clutches of the members of the accused party. There were some neighbourers of the complainant who were also at that time working in the fields. It is the version of the complainant in his report that the above named persons who were members of the accused party were wielding lathies, axes (Kulharies) and Dantali, (grass cutting equipment) immediately pauched upon the complainants mother but for the timely intervention by the neighbours the complainant would have been done to death. The report was lodged about aforesaid incident with the police for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, IPC read with Section 3 (1) (i) of the SCI ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused at the Police Station Sawai, Madhopur. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondent for the commission of the aforesaid offences in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. On.) cum Judicial Magistrate Sawai, Madhopur. The cognizance was taken against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined in support of its case as many as 10 witnesses. The accused examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. They did not lead in evidence in their defence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences against which the present revision petiti9n has been preferred which after preliminary hearing is being finally disposed of today.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned judgment order of acquittal as well as scrutinised the findings recorded by the trial Court. The learned trial court bas recorded specific finding to the effect that the evidence of the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution in support of its case namely Brij Mohan (PW 7) as well as Bishanlal (PW 1) who happened to be close relatives of the complainant have not supported the prosecution case. Brijmohan (PW7) has specifically stated that he had not seen the occurrence while Bishanlal (PW 1) has also stated that when he reached the fields, he saw the accused beating his mother because she had give lathi blow to the cow. Though it has been contended that mother of the complainant had fallen to the ground yet there is no evidence regarding the injury sustained by her. If she was physically assaulted by the members of the accused party then there is no reason as to why she was not rushed to the hospital and medically examined. The corroboration of the complainants version with regard to the assault of injuries on the person of his mother is conspicuously missing and not supported either by medical evidence or by version of any independent witness who was examined on behalf of the complainant or the prosecution prima facie, I am of the view that when the genesis of the prosecution case is itself lacking as regards its material particulars, the question of giving any credence to the story of the complainant does not arise which apparently appears to be false version based on imaginary apprehension and concoction. If there was any truth in complainants version then what were those sparing reasons for which he had not led any medical evidence in its support, which itself shows that the story of the complainant is apparently false and not trustworthy.