Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 54 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. BIDHI CHAND Accused

2002-03-13

K.C.SOOD

body2002
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral) :The present appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge. Kangra at Dharamshala dated 22.12.2000. whereby respondent Bidhi Chand. hereinafter referred to as "the accused", was acquitted. It appears he accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(i) X & XI of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution was: Sudershna Devi who happened to be a Lohar by caste (a Scheduled Caste) was Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Ludret at the relevant time. On 22.9.1997 the general house meeting of the Gram Panchavat Ludret was in session. In this meeting, the Panches and Panchavat Secretary were also present. At about 2.30 P.M. Bantu Ram. son of the accused, came to the Panchavat and asked the Secretary of the Panchayat if the Panchayat had employed any person as water-carrier. The Secretary informed him that none had been appointed. About 15-20 minutes later the accused appeared in the Panchayat and asked similar question from the Secretary. The Panchayat Secretary again answered that nobody so far had been employed as water- carrier. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused then asked Sudershna Devi to engage her son as water- carrier. Sudershna Devi informed the accused that she had no authority to do so. The accused got enraged and picked up a wooden scale King on the table and hit Sudershna Devi on her shoulder with it. He also used filthy language and called her "Lohari". He pulled her from her hair and took her out from the Panchayat Ghar. The members of the Panchayat intervened, she was rescued by them. The members of the Panchayat thereafter passed a resolution Ext. - PF. This resolution was handed over at Police Post Nagrota Surian. Copies of the resolution were also addressed to various authorities including the Chief Minister. Aurveda Minister. Union of the President of the Panchayat. Deputy Commissioner and S.D.M. Dehra. On this resolution, police initialed proceedings against the accused under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It transpires that after several days of the occurrence, it was given political colour. M.L.A. of the area convened a meeting and passed some resolution. The M.L.A.. Union of the President of the Panchayat. Deputy Commissioner and S.D.M. Dehra. On this resolution, police initialed proceedings against the accused under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It transpires that after several days of the occurrence, it was given political colour. M.L.A. of the area convened a meeting and passed some resolution. The M.L.A.. who happened to be the member of the Congress party accompanied the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner and lodged a written complaint of the occurrence under the signatures of complainant Sudershna Devi in terms of Ext.PD. This complaint is dated 3rd November. 1997. The complaint is addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Kangra. The Deputy Commissioner endorsed the complaint to the Superintendent of Police. Kangra. for registration of the case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989. On this complaint addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. Kangra. a formal F.I.R. Ext. PB came to be recorded with Police Station. Haripur: 4. The case of the accused was that he has falsely been implicated in this case for political reasons as he had contested elections against the complainant. According to him. Complainant belongs to Congress party, whereas he was from Bharatiya .Janta Party. It was his further case that proceedings against him were initiated under Sections 107. 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Sudershna Devi regarding this very occurrence which terminated in his favour. He also took a plea that the F.I.R. came to be recorded against him after "due deliberation and consultation with other Pardhans belonging to the other parts and then M.L.A. Smt. Viplov Thakur and Minister Chander Kumar Chaudhary". 5. Learned trial Judge held that the First Information Report lodged with the Police, was not the earliest version. This version was result of consultations and deliberations, particularly when no allegation was made in the complaint addressed to the Deputy Commissioner that the °olice having been informed about the incident or occurrence including one the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. refused to register necessary case. This version was result of consultations and deliberations, particularly when no allegation was made in the complaint addressed to the Deputy Commissioner that the °olice having been informed about the incident or occurrence including one the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. refused to register necessary case. He also took a view that the first information report was the result of the meeting which was convened by the Congress M.L.A. According to the learned trial Judge, the accused could not have been punished twice for the same occurrence and on the same allegation: as he was also proceeded against under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the second prosecution of the accused on the same facts was not maintainable. On merits it was held that the prosecution failed to make out any case against the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused. 6. I have heard Mr. Guleria. learned Law Officer and also Mr. Chander Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the accused/respondent. I was taken through the record by the learned counsel. 7. It is the case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the complaint Ext. PD addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. Kangra at Dharamshala. that when the Session of the General House of the Panchayat was in progress on 22nd September. 1997 accused came to Panchayat Ghar. abused the complainant and called the complainant "Harijan", It was the further case of the prosecution that accused pulled the complainant by hair and threatened that he will abduct her daughter. He also called her "Lohari". The incident according to the prosecution occurred in the presence of the Punches and other members of the General House including Desh Raj. Jeewan Lal. Sharda Devi. Asha Devi, but none of the witnesses has supported the prosecution case. 8. Sharda Devi (PW-5) was the Ward member of the Ludret Panchayat at the relevant time. It is her evidence that she along with other Panches namely. Sudershna. Desh Raj. Asha Devi. Jeewan Lal and Rai Singh were present. Rai Singh left the meeting at about 12 noon. In the afternoon, son pf the accused appeared, when questioned why he had come, he replied that he just came for strolling in the Panchayat. It is her evidence that she along with other Panches namely. Sudershna. Desh Raj. Asha Devi. Jeewan Lal and Rai Singh were present. Rai Singh left the meeting at about 12 noon. In the afternoon, son pf the accused appeared, when questioned why he had come, he replied that he just came for strolling in the Panchayat. After some time Bidhi Chand came to the Panchayat and asked from the Pardhan Sudershna Devi as to why his son was not employed as water carrier. Complainant Sudershna Devi informed that she had not employed any person. The accused became angry and gave abuses to Pardhan. According to her. he gave abuses of "Maan Behan". It is the further evidence of Smt. Sharda Devi that accused threatened the complainant that he would see how she is made Pardhan again. This witness was cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecution but without any tangible result. To similar effect is the evidence of Jeewan Lal (PW-6) who was ward member of Gram Panchayat Ludret at the relevant time. According to this witness Up Pardhan Rai Singh left the Panchayat Ghar at about 2 P.M. At about 3 P.M. son of the accused Bantu came to Panchayat Ghar and asked the Pardhan as to who was employed as water carrier. On this Pardhan informed him that none was appointed. After some time, the accused appeared and asked Pardhan a similar question. The same reply was given by the Pardhan. on which accused became angry and told her that she had employed her own person and had not employed his son. He also told the Pardhan that she had lied to him and had deceived him. Thereafter in the words of this witness "accused forcefully struck the table with his hand and abused the Pardhan. He did not state anything else to the Pardhan. Then we all collected there and came out and nothing was happened in his presence. "This witness was too cross examined by the Public Prosecutor but without any result. In cross examination by the accused, he admitted that all of them went together to the Police Post Nagrota Surian and handed over the resolution at the police post. He also stated that when accused exchanged hot words with Pardhan. they all felt that she had been insulted and therefore out of anguish, the resolution was passed by the Panchayat. In cross examination by the accused, he admitted that all of them went together to the Police Post Nagrota Surian and handed over the resolution at the police post. He also stated that when accused exchanged hot words with Pardhan. they all felt that she had been insulted and therefore out of anguish, the resolution was passed by the Panchayat. Asha Devi (PW-7) is the other member of the Panchayat. She had stated that after Rai Singh left the meeting accused came there and asked the Pardhan about the appointment of the water carrier. In the meanwhile, accused Bidhi Chand appeared and asked the complainant why his son was not appointed as water carrier. Complainant Sudershna Devi informed Bidhi Chand that she has not appointed his own person as water carrier on which Bidhi Chand got angry. In her own words "he gave threat and gave abuses of Maan Behan and also struck the table with a scale. Thereafter I do not know what happened." She was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and denied the suggestion that accused had given blows with scale to the complainant or threatened him. She admitted in her cross examination by the accused that there were 30 to 40 persons present in the session of the Panchayat and all of them went to the Police Post Nagrota Surian was the resolution, where her statement was also recorded by the Police5 and hereafter her statement was never recorded. Sahib Singh (PW 3)\vas the Panchayat Secretary at the relevant time. It is his evidence that accused abused the complainant. According to him. him. he did not remember the exact abuses. However, he remember that accused struck the table with his hand, then picked up a wooden scale and gave two three blows on the back of Pardhan. In cross examination, he stated that resolution was passed by the members and handed over to the Police. He admitted that police had made inquiries from the members of the Panchayat on that very day. 9. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that complainant Sudershna Devi was not called "Lohari as the complainant would have us believe. The overwhelming evidence on record shows that she was not hit with a scale. Indeed an alteration took place. The complainant chose not to report the incident to the Police. A resolution was passed by the members of Panchayat. The overwhelming evidence on record shows that she was not hit with a scale. Indeed an alteration took place. The complainant chose not to report the incident to the Police. A resolution was passed by the members of Panchayat. who felt insulted. It was on this resolution that the proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the accused. The first information report which was lodged after about 12 days of the incident, as the\evidence shows, was the result of deliberations, consultations and intervention of the local M.L.A. who convened the meeting of the members, secretary passed the resolution and then went to the Deputy Commissioner with the second complaint. In the earliest version given in the Panchayat resolution there isnot a whisper about the complainant having been called "Lohari" by the accused or given any blow with the wooden scale. 10. In the circumstances noticed above, it cannot be sad that the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is Unsupportable by the evidence on record or perverse. So far as the question of double jeopardy is concerned. I need not go into this that question as the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits. 11. In result, appeal falls and is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.