[2025:RJ-JD:52321]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 102/1996

Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh, Jat Sikh, Resident of Mohanpura, Tehsil and Distt. Sri – Ganganagar.

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. DS Gharsana

Mr. Suresh Nehra

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA with

Mr. Ravindra Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

04/12/2025

1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.01.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.288/1994, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 447 of IPC and six months’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month under

Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that on 06.06.1994, Smt. Nasib Kaur wife of Shri Gurdev Singh gave a written report to the

Assistant Police Superintendent, Sri Ganganagar to the effect that she is the resident of Mohanpura and belongs to a Scheduled Caste. On 05.06.1994, in the mid-night when she was sleeping in her house, the accused Harbhajan Singh came over to her house and put his hand on her mouth and forcibly tried to rape her. On her cries, her husband, who was sleeping besides her, woke up and when he tried to intervene, the accused inflicted a knife injury on him. On this information, an FIR No.221/1994 was registered at Police Station, Ganganagar Sadar and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 458, 323 and 190 of IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the appellant for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses and also examined defence witness namely Harcharan Singh. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 447 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act vide judgment dated

05.01.1996. Hence, the instant appeal is filed before this court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the judgment under assail whereby the appellant has been convicted for committing an offence under Sections 447 of IPC and 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By the same judgment, the appellant was acquitted from the charge of Sections 458, 323 and 190 of IPC. No appeal has been either filed on behalf of the complainant or the State.

4.1 After meticulous appreciation of evidence, particularly, the statements of the witnesses victim P.W.-2 (Naseebkaur) and P.W.-1 (Gurdev Singh) and other prosecution witnesses, the trial Court found a major part of the prosecution not believable. The appellant has been exonerated from Section 458 of IPC which is lurking house breaking in mid-night. The appellant has been convicted under Section 447 which is in relation to criminal trespass, however, learned trial Judge did not mention as to how the offence of trespass was made out when the allegations of barging into the house of the complainant were not found believable. An offence of trespass would be committed if the accused enters in the premise of the complainant. The theory as set out in the charge-sheet was not approved by the learned trial Court.