Ayub Khan Son of Vali Mohd vs State of Rajasthan

By these two criminal appeals under Section 14A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for short, ''Act of 1989''), appellants have assailed

impugned order dated 25.09.2017 passed by Special Judge,

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities

Cases), Balotra in Criminal Case No.134/2017 arising out of a

common FIR No.436/2016 of Police Station Balotra, therefore,

they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

In the FIR aforesaid, the appellants have been charged for

offence under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 308 IPC and Section 3(1)

(x) of the Act of 1989. After completion of investigation, police

submitted charge-sheet in the matter against four accused

persons including appellants and one Durg Singh.

Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant

Joga Ram on 16.10.2016 reported to the SHO Police Station

Balotra that on 12th of October 2016 at 9 PM, appellant Durg Singh

and his daughter-in-law abused him by naming his caste to

demean him and kidnapped him, and thereafter taking him to

their field beaten him. When the complainant was returning back

in a taxi after making complaint to Superintendent of Police,

Bamer on 15th of October, 2016, at 9 PM he was intercepted by

Durg Singh and Ayub Khan in the way and they abused him in

filthy language threatening him for taking action against them and

in lieu thereof demanded Rs.5,000 for liquor. On denial by the

complainant, accused persons Durg Singh, Ayub Khan, Kheta Ram

& Bhatta Ram, all the four took out iron rods, dhariya and lathis

from their vehicles and started beating him. When his mother

intervened, the accused persons in order to kill her gave continuous blows and as a result of which she suffered grievious

injuries. Bhagirath tried to save her but he too was given beatings

by the appellants. Hearing their cries, brothers of complainant

Omprakash and Shree Ram reached at the spot who were also

dealt with in the same manner by the accused-persons and

injuries dangerous to life were also inflicted to them. To save

himself, complainant, rushed into his house but the accused

persons entered the house also and there also they gave him

beatings. On his wife intervening, the accused persons outraged

her modesty and after snatching her gold necklace fled away.

Addressing on merits, learned counsel for the appellants

submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the

matter and no offence is made out against them. Learned counsel

for the appellants have also urged that the statements of

witnesses are inconsistent and contradictory. It is also urged by

learned counsel for the appellants that in the incident free fight

took place in which complainant party was aggressor and the

appellants acted in order to save themselves. Learned counsel

contended that though during the scuffle complainant and others

suffered injuries but no specific overt-act has been assigned to

any of the appellants for causing specific injury with a particular

weapon and furthermore none of the injuries suffered by them is

on vital part of the body, therefore, prima facie offence under

Section 308 IPC is not made out. Lastly, learned counsel has

urged that after investigation chargesheet in the matter has

already been filed and the appellants are in custody for about last

three and half months, therefore, impugned order be annulled and

they may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

appeals and submits that looking to the nature of offences no

interference with the discretionary order passed by learned trial

Court is warranted and as such they are not entitled for bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned

Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as well as

challan papers.

Upon examining the matter, it has emerged out that at the

first instance complainant was abused by appellant Durg Singh

and his daughter-in-law to demean him by naming his caste and

after his kidnapping he was given beatings. On complainant''s

making complaint to the Superintendent of Police, he was again

beaten mercilessly by four accused persons including the three

appellants by iron rods, dhariya and lathis by intercepting his way.

They even did not spare mother of the complainant and his wife

and not only given them beatings but also outraged the modesty

of complainant''s wife in furtherance of their nasty intention by

tearing her Odhna and thereafter snatched gold necklace (Kanthi)

from her neck. The x-ray and injury reports of injured speak

volumes about the merciless acts of accused persons including the three appellants and as such looking to the alleged incriminating

materials available on record against appellants, I am at loss to

say that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in

exercise of its discretion. The evidence, which has come to the

fore during investigation, prima facie proves involvement of the

appellants for commission of serious offences, and therefore, it

would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the

impugned order.

In this view of the matter, I am unable to find any infirmity

in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of

appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 14A(2) of the

Act.

Resultantly, the instant appeals fail and are hereby

dismissed.