HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1572/2019

1.

Taj Mohammed S/o Sh. Jamaldeen, Aged About 50 Years,

By Caste Muslim, Resident Of Village Kheruwala, Tehsil

Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

2.

Imamdeen S/o Sh. Mirje Khan, Aged About 33 Years, By

Caste Muslim, Resident Of Village Kheruwala, Tehsil

Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

3.

Mansar Ali S/o Sh. Lal Khan, Aged About 29 Years, By

Caste Muslim, Resident Of Village Kheruwala, Tehsil

Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Appellants

Versus

1.

State, Through Its P.p.

2.

Nanak Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 50 Years, By

Caste Baori, R/o Village Khairuwala, Presently Address

Chak Sohnewala, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri-

Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. B.S. Sandhu

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Gaurav Singh PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

06/04/2022

1.

In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2.

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14 (A) (1) SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred with the

following prayer:

(2 of 4)

[CRLAS-1572/2019]

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the order

passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Sri-

Ganganagar, in case number 11/2016 (State V/s Munsaf Ali

& Ors.) by which the charges framed against the appellants

U/s 307/149, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149,

427/149, 147, 148 IPC & U/S 3 (2) (V) of SC/ ST Act vide

order dated 17.10.2019, may kindly be quashed and set

aside.”

3.

As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the

learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,

Sri Ganganagar passed the impugned order, dated 17.10.2019,

framing charges against the accused-appellants for the offences

under Sections 307/149, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149,

326/149, 427/149, 147, 148 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (V) of

the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 upon filing of a

complaint by the complainant Nanak Singh, alleging therein that,

the accused-appellants and the complainant were engaged in an

old land dispute, and that on 16.07.2013, the accused-appellants

attacked the complainant and his family members with weapons

and also opened gunfire, while abusing them with casteist slurs.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

impugned order suffers from legal infirmity on the ground that the

learned Court below has not rightly appreciated the overall facts

and circumstances of the case. And that, the injured eye witness,

namely Veer Singh, has denied the alleged incident itself.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the

offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is specifically not made out,

given that no person involved in the alleged incident has suffered

from injuries dangerous to life.

(3 of 4)

[CRLAS-1572/2019]

6.

Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the

judgments rendered in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2012) 11 SCC 476, State

of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu (2017) 3 SCC 198,

Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Crl.

Revision Petition No. 82/2008, decided by this Hon’ble

Court on 21.02.2013), Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.

(1988) 4 SCC 551, State of M.P. Vs. Saleem & Anr. (2005)

5 SCC 554, Jage Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2015)

11 SCC 366, Ishwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1976 Cri. L.J.

1883 and Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr.

(2012) 9 SCC 460.

7.

Learned Public Prosecutor however opposes and submits

that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order only

after taking into due consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case, and an appreciation of the evi