Chandrajeet vs State Of Rajasthan

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by Order dated 28.09.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bharatpur, whereby court has framed charges against the petitioner and other co-accused for offence under the Penal Code as well as under the SC/ST Act.

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that appellant and complainant contested the election of Sarpanch. Complainant lost the election and to settle the scores, he has filed the present complaint against the appellant. It is contended that appellant being Sarpanch was carrying out development activities as per directions of the Authorities. A letter was written by the Block Development Officer to the S.H.O. on 25.02.2016 about hindrance being caused in the development work by the complainant and other persons. A request was made to the S.H.O. concerned to take action against the persons who were creating hindrance in the development work. It is also contended that offence under the SC/ST act is not made out and there is cross F.I.R. filed by Secretatry Panchayat Samiti, in which police has submitted charge-sheet against the complainant and other persons. It is contended that only one injury is caused to Tularam and as per the statement of witnesses, the injury is assigned to Rajender, S/o Shiv Lal. It is also contended that framing of charges under the SC/ST Act would result into removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch and that is the only purpose behind lodging of the present F.I.R.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present criminal appeal. His contention is that statement of Ram Bai has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and she has alleged that appellant had inflicted injury on her son Tularam by a sharp weapon. Tularam also in his investigation had stated that the appellant inflicted injury to him by a Gandasa and abused the appellant by caste name in public view.

I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order.

It is the case of the complainant that he had a stay granted in his favour, the appellant in spite of having knowledge about the stay wanted to carry on the work and when objection was raised by him, he abused the complainant and inflicted injury upon him.

The fact of abusing and causing injury is made out from statement of Tualram and statement of Ram Bai. However, from the statement of Ram Bai recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it is revealed that one Bugal Singh pulled her hair. There is no allegation against the appellant for intentionally touching of woman belonging to Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe.

Section 3(1)(w)(i) reads as under:-

"Intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent;"

Court below has charged the appellant for offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i), which apparently is not made out, as there is no allegation against the appellant of touching a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, nor there is any allegation that the act of touching is of a sexual nature. The framing of charge under Section 3(1)(w)(i) thus cannot be sustained.

However there was jurisdiction in framing charges under other Sections of the IPC and SC/St Act.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, while upholding the framing of charges under Penal Code and for offence under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, the charges framing under Sections 3 (1) (w) (I) of SC/ST Act is quashed.