AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.