[2025:RJ-JD:52963]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 411/1996 Sukha Ram son of Hazriram, caste Prajapat, resident of Pundlu, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur.

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Renu Rathore (Amicus Curiae)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati Mr. Ravindra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

05/12/2025

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 23.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta City, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.37/1992, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to six month’s rigourous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹50, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days of rigourous imprisonment.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 07.10.1991, Manak Ram lodged a written report at Police Station Gotan alleging that his aunt, Bidami Bawri, was tending her crop when the accused allowed his oxen to stray into her field. On her objection, the accused, joined by his wife and daughter, allegedly entered the field and assaulted her, causing injuries to her shoulder and hand. Her children, Parmudi and Laxman, intervened. The incident, occurring in Bidami’s field, was conveyed to Manak Ram by Ram Prakash. The police thereafter registered the case, investigated the matter, and filed the chargesheet against the accused.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. It emerges from the material on record that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute in respect of the offences under Sections 323 and 447 IPC during the trial. The allegation of assault arose not on account of the complainant being a member of the Scheduled Caste community but from a quarrel precipitated by the entry of the appellant’s cattle into the complainant’s agricultural field. The injuries, thus, were not inflicted with the intention to target the complainant on caste lines.

4.1 It is further evident that, although the incident occurred in an open field, there was no “public view” as contemplated under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The field is expansive, and except for the complainant’s mother, PW-1 Laxman Ram, and the accused, no other person was present. The expression “public view” postulates the presence of persons who are capable of witnessing the occurrence; the mere fact that the place is open does not satisfy this requirement. The learned Judge indeed committed an error of law in not elucidating how the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were made out in the present case. In these circumstances, once the substantive offences under Sections 323 and 447 IPC stand compromised, no independent offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act survives. This Court, therefore, finds no justification to sustain the conviction under the SC/ST Act.

5. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta is quashed and set aside.

6. The appellant stands acquitted of the charges. His bail bonds stand discharged.

7. Any pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J

6-Mamta/-