Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2433

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA, JJ.
Baluram, s/o. Shri Laduram – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1993
Decided On : 06-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Chakrawati Singh
For THE Respondents: Mr. Pawan Bhati, P.P. assisted by Ms. Shivangi Pathak for Mr. Deepak Menaria

The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to delays, inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and an unaddressed alibi, necessitating their acquittal.

Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(iv) - IPC - Sections 323, 436, 452 - Conviction under SC/ST Act and IPC challenged. (1) The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants due to significant delays in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the alleged assault and arson (Paras 19, 8). (2) The accused-appellants' plea of alibi raised serious doubt and was not properly considered by the lower court (Paras 14, 19). (3) As per the court's findings, a lack of corroboration from independent witnesses and absence of key forensic evidence undermined the prosecution's case (Paras 11, 12, 19).

(B) Result - The appeal is allowed, the conviction set aside, and the accused-appellants acquitted of all charges. (Paras 20, 19.2).

judgment :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This Criminal appeal under Section 374 , Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 16.03.1993 and the order of sentence dated 20.03.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 5/92, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:

Accused-appellant Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh:

Offence under Section(s)	Sentence(s)	Fine(s)
3(2)(iv) of SC/ST(prevention of	Life Imprisonment	Rs 500/- each, in default of payment of
Atrocities) Act		fine to further undergo 1 month Rigorous Imprisonment.
Section 452 IPC	6 months Rigorous Imprisonment	Rs 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment.

Accused-appellant Balaram, and Motiram:

Offence under Section(s)	Sentence(s)	Fine(s)
Section 436 IPC	5 years Rigorous Imprisonment	Rs 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month Rigorous Imprisonment.
Section 452 IPC	6 months Rigorous Imprisonment	Rs 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment.

Accused-appellant Durgasingh, Mahendrasingh, Balaram, and Motiram:

Offence under	Section(s)	Sentence(s)	Fine(s)
Section 323 IPC		3 months Rigorous Imprisonment	Rs 200/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment

1.1. At the outset, it is noted that accused–appellants No. 1 and 2, namely Balaram and Motiram, have expired during pendency of the appeal. Hence, the adjudication survives only in respect of appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh.

2. The present case arises out of a written report dated 11.02.1990 lodged by the complainant Shankarlal at about 9:15 AM at police station Piparcity, alleging therein that on 10.02.1990 at about 8 AM, the accused-appellants entered into his shack (kachhi dhani) and started beating him, as a result whereof the complainant Shankarram received multiple injuries, including one on head.

2.1. It is also alleged in the report that the accused Durgasingh with an intention to cause wrongful loss and damage to the shack belonging to the complainant Shankarram, lit fire as a result whereof, all articles lying in the aforesaid dhani were burnt. Smt. Kamla, Smt. Situri, Durgara, and Laluram are named in the FIR, who are said to have witnessed this incident. On receiving the information, the S.H.O. Police Station, Piparcity registered a regular criminal case being FIR Case No. 183/90 and the investigation ensued.

2.2. After the investigation, a chargesheet pertaining to the offences punishable under Section 447 , 452, 323, and 436 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’) and Section 3 (2)(iv) and (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1989’) was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Piparcity, who in turn committed the case for trial under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2.3. The charges under Section 3 23 , 452 IPC and Section 3 (2) (iii), (iv), and (v)of the Act of 1989 were read over to the accused-appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh; and to accused-appellants Balaram and Motiram under Section 452 , 323, and 436 were read over and explained to them, to which they denied and pleaded false implication in the present case.

2.4. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 20 witnesses and 21 documents were exhibited; in defence, 5 witnesses were produced on behalf of the accused-appellants whereafter, the accused- appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question. Accused-appellant Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh pleaded that at the time of the incident they were Jalore and Jaisalmer, respectively. The rest of the accused persons said that the father of the plaintiff wanted to plough the field of Pukhram Lohar and hence this false case was filed, but no eviden