PAPPU KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Pappu Kanwar has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') being aggrieved of the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 211/2017 whereby, charges were framed by the Trial Court against the appellant for the offences under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted herein below:

(3.) Shri Sinwaria, learned Counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that from the highest allegations as set out in the FIR, no prima facie case under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act or Section 306 of the I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. The prosecution allegations are absolutely vague and flimsy. The field of the accused had been taken by the deceased's family on sharing basis and a dispute arising thereupon, has been given the colour of an offences. He urged that Munna Ram, the first informant, did not allege in his statement that the accused hurled any caste based abuses towards him or towards his wife Pappu Devi in his presence. He further submitted that Omprakash has made vague allegations in his statement regarding Pappu Kanwar having lost her temper because of the damage caused to the crops because she felt that Omprakash had acted negligently and was responsible for the loss. He urged that the Trial Court has not framed charge against the appellant for any alleged incident which might have taken place between her and Omprakash. On the other hand, so far as the incident with Pappu Devi is concerned, other than conjectural inferences sought to be drawn from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, there is no direct or substantive evidence to satisfy that the accused ever harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of her caste or that she instigated her to commit suicide. He urged that as a matter of fact, the deceased appears to have been caught in a tug of war between her conscience to make good the losses caused to the appellant by the negligent acts of her son-in-law Omprakash and of working in the field in his place against the wishes of her husband Munna Ram. He urged that being perturbed by this conflict, the deceased lost her mental equilibrium; went back to her house and there, she consumed poison thereby ending her life. He urged that admittedly, neither the appellant nor any of the members of the family of the deceased were present in the house when she consumed poison. None of the prosecution witnesses claims to have witnessed or observed the talks which took between the appellant and the deceased on 7.10.2016 before she committed suicide and thus, there is nothing on the record of the case to show that the appellant is even remotely or in any manner responsible for the offences alleged. He thus urged that the Trial Court was absolutely unjustified in framing charge against the appellant for the above offences. In support of his contentions, Shri Sinwaria placed reliance on the following Supreme Court judgments: