Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 303 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. RAM PRAKASH

2004-11-02

M.R.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This petition has been preferred by the State for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of a charge under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant Parma Nand, a member of Scheduled Caste and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chhattar, on the basis of some application made to him by Nihal Singh a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste, alongwith Panchayat members visited the shop-cum-house of the respondents on 3.8,2001 at about 9.30 a.m. and asked them as to why they beat and threatened Nihal Singh, The query led the respondents to threaten Parma Nand saying that he was a Koli and why he had come to their house. The respondents also called other members of the Panchayat as Koli and asked them not to come to their house. It is alleged chat by uttering the aforesaid words the respondents had insulted the aforesaid Pradhan and members of the Panchayat, therefore, they went to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, handed over an application to him, which was forwarded to the Dy. S.P. Sundernagar and SHO, Police Station, Sundernagar and an FIR was registered against the respondents. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents who came to be tried by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, on a charge under Section 3(x) of the Act. 3. On consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution, statements of the respondents under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and the defence witnesses produced by the respondents, the trial Court held that the charge against the respondents was not proved and accordingly acquitted the respondents. Hence, this petition by the aggrieved State. 4. I have heard the learned Law Officer for the State, who has also read the statements of the material witnesses attested copies whereof are available with him. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondents reside within the local limits of Gram Panchayat, Kanaid. Nihal Singh had presented some application against the respondents to Parma Nand, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chhattar. It is not the case of the prosecution that cause to file the application by Nihal Singh arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Panchayat Chhattar. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondents reside within the local limits of Gram Panchayat, Kanaid. Nihal Singh had presented some application against the respondents to Parma Nand, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chhattar. It is not the case of the prosecution that cause to file the application by Nihal Singh arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Panchayat Chhattar. There is no explanation as to why Nihal Singh chose to file the application in Panchayat Chhattar. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only inference which can be drawn is that Nihal Singh chose to file he application against the respondents in Gram Panchayat, Chhattar because the Pradhan of the said Panchayat and a substantial number of the members of that Panchayat belong to the Scheduled Caste. 6. It is admitted by Parma Nand, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chhattar that as and when a complaint, a case is filed in the Gram Panchayat it is registered and then summons are issued to the accused /respondent and after securing his presence evidence is recorded in the Panchayat and thereafter the matter is disposed of. It is also his admitted case that on receipt of the application made by Nihal Singh, the application was not registered as a case in Panchayat Chhattar nor the respondents were summoned. Instead the Panchayat members headed by Pradhan Parma Nand went to the house of .the respondents allegedly to make enquiries as to why he was harassing Nihal Singh ignoring that the Panchayat represented by them had no jurisdiction at all to intervene in the matter. The law does not vest any power or authority on a Gram Panchayat or its Pradhan and members to convert the house of a citizen, may be an offender, into a Panchayat Bhawan to conduct a trial. Thus, the act of Parma Nand Pradhan and the members of Gram Panchayat, Chhattar in going to the house of the respondents, was in violation of law and contrary to the prescribed procedure more so when Panchayat Chhattar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of Nihal Singh. 7. It is claimed that Gram Panchayat, Chhattar had informed the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Kanaid about the allegations made in the application of Nihal Singh. However, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Kanaid, namely, Ram Dass (DW-2) has denied having received any report/information from Gram Panchayat, Chhattar about the allegations in the application. 7. It is claimed that Gram Panchayat, Chhattar had informed the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Kanaid about the allegations made in the application of Nihal Singh. However, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Kanaid, namely, Ram Dass (DW-2) has denied having received any report/information from Gram Panchayat, Chhattar about the allegations in the application. Evidently, Parma Nand and other members of Gram Panchayat, Chhattar were motivated by caste considerations to act in an unlawful manner because Nihal Singh also belongs to a Scheduled Caste and they were not acting in good faith in the discharge of their duties which renders their action of going to the house of the respondents reprehensible apart being illegal and unwarranted. 8. It is not in dispute that when Parma Nand and Panchayat members reached at the house of the respondents they simply called them Kolies and warned them not to come to their house. Evidently, their warning Parma Nand and other persons accompanying him from entering the house of the respondents in the manner as intended was a right vested in the respondents not to permit anybody whosoever liked to enter their house in an unlawful manner. Thus, there is nothing wrong in the respondents preventing Parma Nand and his companions entering in their house illegally and in an unwarranted manner. 9. There is no allegation that the respondents had referred to the caste of Parma Nand of other members with a view to insult or humiliate them. It is not in dispute that in fact Parma Nand is a Koli by caste. Mere reference to the caste of a person is not an offence unless the reference is with the intention to insult or humiliate with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste in any place within public view. Therefore, mere reference to the caste of Parma Nand and other members accompanying him is no offence. 10. In Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka (1998 Crl. L.J. 53), Karnataka High Court while dealing with the subject as in hand held as under: "It is further argued that calling a particular person in the name of the caste to which he belongs also is not an offence and to substantiate that argument, he also placed reliance on a decision rendered by Allahabad High Court reported in (1981 Cri. Law Cases I). Law Cases I). In that case also, the accused therein called the complainant as chammar and in actual fact the complainant also belonged to that caste. Therefore, it is held merely calling someone by his caste does not attract the provisions of this Act." 11. The defence version is that respondent Ashwani had lodged an FIR against Nihal Singh and when Parma Nand alongwith members of the Panchayat went to the house of the respondents, he insisted that the complaint filed against Nihal Singh be withdrawn which was not acceptable to the respondents which led to the lodging of the FIR against the respondents as a measure of retaliation. This defence on the basis of the material on the record has been accepted by the trial Court. 12. In view of the above discussion, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. It is, therefore, not a case fit for grant of leave to appeal. 13. As a result, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.