Rameshwar Lal and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.—This revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC. has been filed by four petitioners, namely, Mohan Lal, Rameshwar Lal, Hari Ram and Rugha Ram (added accused persons u/s 319 Cr.P.C.) against the order dtd. 22.1.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases, Bikaner passed in criminal case No.31/2001 by which he allowed the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and further took cognizance for offence under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(V) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989) against the petitioners and they were ordered to be tried alongwith accused Jai Kishan,

It arises in the following circumstances:

(i) That P.W.1 Jiya Ram filed a complaint (Ex.P/1) on 10.8.99 before the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner against five persons, namely, Jai Kishan, Mohan Lal, Rameshwar Lal, Hari Ram and Rugha Ram stating that these persons wanted to evict the complainant Jiya Ram(P.W.1) from his land and the complainant Jiya Ram (P.W.1)belongs to Scheduled Caste. It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that on 7.8.99, the added accused persons and Jai Kishan entered his field and abused P.W.1 Jiya Ram.

(ii) That the complaint was sent to the Police Station, Napasar u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation on 10.8.99 where FIR no.80/99 was registered for offences u/s 352, 323 and 447 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and after investigation the police filed challan against Jai Kishan only for offences u/s 3(1)(V) and 3(1)(X) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the Magistrate from where the case was committed to the court of Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner.

(iii) That charge for the offences u/s 3(1)(V) and 3(1)(X) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was framed by the learned Special Judge against accused Jai Kishan through order dtd. 13.10.2000 which was denied by the accused Jai Kishan who claimed trial.

(iv) During trial, when statements of six witnesses had been recorded. P.W.1 Jiya Ram filed an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on 6.12.2001 and made a prayer that the cognizance for offences under Sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1)(V) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be also taken against the added accused petitioners.

(v) That the learned trial Court through impugned order dtd. 22.1.2002 accepted that application filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C. by P.W.1 Jiya Ram and took cognizance against the added accused petitioner for offences u/s 3(1)(V) and 3(1)(X) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act inter alia holding:

(i) That no doubt witnesses P.W.5 Khema Ram and P.W.6 Gopala Ram have been declared hostile but since rest witnesses P.W.1 Jiya Ram, P.W.2 Kalu Ram, P.W.3 Anda Ram and P.W.4 Sukh Ram have stated that added accused petitioners were also present and were also involved in the commission of offence.

(vi) Aggrieved from the order dtd.22.1.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, this revision petition has been filed by the added accused petitioner.

In this revision petition, the main case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dtd.22.1.2002 passed by the learned trial Court suffers from basic infirmity on the point that the learned trial Judge has not given any cogent reason as to how the present added accused petitioner were involved and furthermore statements of all the witnesses, namely P.W.1 Jiya Ram, P.W.2 Kalu Ram, P.W.3 Anda Ram and P.W.4 Sukh Ram are vague and therefore, cognizance was wrongly taken against the added accused petitioners.

On the other hand, the learned P.P. has supported the order dtd.22.1.2002 and submitted that the impugned order dtd.22.1.2002 is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference by this Court.

Heard and perused the impugned judgment.

Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant and not by PP.

It may also be stated here that the power conferred by Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extra-ordinary power and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the accused against whom challan has not been filed.

In the present case, P.W.1 Jiya Ram (complainant) was having dispute with the Revenue Department and further more P.W.3 Anda Ram has stated that only Jai Kishan abused the complainant P.W.1 Jiya Ram and added accused petitioners did not abuse him and mere presence of added accused petitioners at the spot is not sufficient to connect the added accused petitioners with the commission of the crime and the reasons which have been assigned by learned Special Judge for taking cognizance against the added accused petitioners for the aforesaid offence are not such cogent reasons on the basis of which cognizance should have been taken against the added accused petitioners and, therefore, the impugned order dtd.20.1.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be sustained.

Apart from this, prima facie case and no the evidence which is sufficient for conviction is required for impleading a person as accused and the Court should examine the evidence objectively and this aspect is totally missing in the present case.

The High Court''s power u/s 397 Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when there exists manifest illegality in the judgment or order or there is grave miscarriage of justice.

In the present the order dtd.22.1.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner suffers from manifest illegality and there is grave miscarriage of justice and hence the order dtd.22.1.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge is liable to be quashed and set aside and this revision petition deserves to be allowed.

For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dtd. 22.1.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner is quashed and set aside.