Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SUNIL BENIWAL, JJ.
Lalchand S/o Chhoturam - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2019
Decided On : 16-06-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder and Atrocities Act
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.304 PART II, S.307, S.323, S.34, S.341
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT: S.3(1)(r), S.3(1)(s), S.3(2)(v)
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Testimony of eyewitness and corroboration - The importance of consistent witness statements and minor discrepancies in peripheral details - The court emphasized that minor inconsistencies do not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case when substantial direct evidence supports it. (Paras 7, 13)
(C) Legal Standards - The standard of proof - The court reiterated that the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, met by corroborative evidence and reliable witness testimonies. (Paras 10, 20)
(D) Conviction - The court found sufficient evidence supporting the conviction of the accused-appellants both under Section 302 IPC and the SC/ST Act, establishing acts of violence driven by caste animosity. (Paras 22, 24) (E) Defense - The defense arguments regarding witness credibility and motive were dismissed as lacking merit, accepting the prosecution's narrative as credible and substantiated. (Paras 6, 21)
For the Appellants : J.S. Chouhdary, Pradeep Choudhary, Sampati Choudhary
For the Respondents: Ramesh Dewasi, Rakesh Matoria
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case outlined. (Para 2) |
| 2. accused-appellants' defense arguments presented. (Para 3) |
| 3. prosecution's rebuttal and evidence discussed. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis and observations on evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. judgment and legal conclusions drawn. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. conclusion of the appeal. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 62/2016 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalchand and Ors. ), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Accused-appellant: Palaram
| Conviction u/s. | Sentence & Fine | In Default of payment of fine further undergo |
| 302 of I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment alongwith Fine of Rs.20,000/- | One Year’s additional simple imprisonment |
| 323 of I.P.C. | Six Month’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.1000/- | Fifteen days additional simple imprisonment |
| 3(1)(R)(S) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act | One Year’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.5000/- | One month’s additional simple imprisonment |
Accused-appellants: Lalchand, Gulveer, Vinod
| Conviction u/s. | Sentence & Fine | In Default of payment of fine further undergo |
| 302/34 of I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment alongwith Fine of Rs.20,000/- | One Year’s additional simple imprisonment |
| 323 of I.P.C. | Six Month’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.1000/- | Fifteen days additional simple imprisonment |
| 3(1)(R)(S) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act | One Year’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.5000/- | One month’s additional simple imprisonment |
2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court are that one Jagveer Kaur (Complainant and P.W.1), on 20.08.2016 while being admitted in trauma ward of Government Hospital, Hanumangarh, gave a Parcha Bayan in the presence of a Police Officer, wherein she stated that 20-25 days ago she had a dispute with her neighbors accused-appellant Lalchand and others with respect to water drainage channel. It was also stated that because of the said dispute cases were also registered, and because of the said reason the accused-appellant Lalchand and his family members held enmity against the complainant, her husband and her family.
2.1. It was further stated in the said Parcha Bayan that on the day of incident, when the husband of complainant (Balvinder Singh @Babbu) was returning from work, at around 8:30 p.m., the accused appellants Lalchand, Palaram, Gulveer and Vinod, on sight of Balvinder Singh on common street of Ward Number 44, stopped and attacked him with the intention of murdering him, using Lathis and Kaapa. It was alleged that accused-appellant Palaram had the Kaapa in his hand by which he caused the injuries on the head and face of Balvinder Singh, and when the complainant intervened to save her husband (Balvinder Singh), all the accused appellants gave beatings to both, complainant and her husband, due to which even complainant sustained injuries. It was further alleged that the accused-appellants also hurled abuses with respect to their caste, and said that they will burn their houses and throw them outside the colony. It was further stated that one Paramjeet Singh intervened and saved them and one Parmanand took them to hospital in his car.
2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, an FIR bearing No.401/2016 was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh, for the offence under Sections 307 , 323, 341 read with Section 34 IPC, the police started investigation in the matter. However, before conclusion of the investigation, Balvinder Singh succumbed to the injuries during the treatment, and thus, after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under section 302, 307, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
