Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1717 (PNJ)

Tota Singh v. Piara Singh

2012-12-03

SABINA

body2012
Sabina, J.— Respondent had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 3(1) sub clause 1(ii), (iii),(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short Rs.the Act') and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1873 (for short Rs.IPC'). The Judge, Special Court vide judgment dated 03.01.2012 acquitted respondent of the charges framed against him. Hence the present application with the prayer for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Rs.Cr. P. C'. ) has been filed by the complainant. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant was resident of village Kapial and was a member of scheduled caste. On 22.4.2009, Parkash Singh and Surjit Kaur inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. Complainant was rushed to Army Hospital at Patiala. However, with the intervention of respectables of the village, a compromise was effected between the parties. The amount of compensation agreed to be paid by Parkash Singh and Piara Singh was not paid to the complainant. When the complainant approached the said persons, they again inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant on 25.4.2009 in connivance with Mohan Singh and Harbilas Singh. First Information Report ( Rs.FIR for short) No. 91 dated 29.4.2009 was registered against the said accused under Sections 451, 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Bhawanigrh. Accused Piara Singh had threatened the complainant with dire consequences. On 16.12.2009, complainant along with his wife and brother had come to Sangrur to attend the hearing of the abovesaid criminal case. While they were returning to their village at about 2. 00 p. m., Piara Singh accompanied by 3-4 unknown persons gave slaps on the face of the wife of the complainant. One unknown person tried to administer liquor to the wife of the complainant. Accused Piara Singh gave fist blow on the face of the complainant. Accused Piara Singh with the help of an unknown person removed complainant's shirt and vest and tore off the clothes of the complainant's wife. Accused Piara Singh lifted a broken brick from the road and threw it towards complainant's back. A number of persons gathered at the spot. Accused Piara Singh gave fist blow on the face of the complainant. Accused Piara Singh with the help of an unknown person removed complainant's shirt and vest and tore off the clothes of the complainant's wife. Accused Piara Singh lifted a broken brick from the road and threw it towards complainant's back. A number of persons gathered at the spot. Piara Singh abused the complainant by saying “Tunn Kuteya Chmiyara Sadda Kujh Nahin Vigarr Sakda, Tennu Kutey Chmiyar Noo Pind Chon Kadh Key Chhadange Attey Tera Bachiyan Da Vee Bura Haal Kar Devanga, Tera Varge Kutey Chamiyar Taan Saadi Gulami Karde Hun, Saadi Bahut Door Tak Pahunch Hai”. Hence, the complaint under the Act was filed by the complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the instant application deserves dismissal. The learned Judge, Special Court, while acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him, has held that although the complainant had established on record that he was a member of the Scheduled Caste but had failed to prove on record the caste of the accused. The learned Judge, Special Court further held as under:- “In the complaint Exhibit P5, the accused is shown to have used the objectionable language in the presence of the afore-stated persons but while appearing as PW1, the accuser does not say that the derogatory remarks were made by the accused in the presence of these people. Even the text of the language stated to be used by the accused differs in the complaint, Exhibit P5 and deposition of the accused as PW1. In the complaint, Exhibit P5, accused is shown to have said,”Tunn Kuteya Chamiyara Saada Kujh Nahin Vigarr Sakda, Tennu Kutey Chamiyar Noo Pind Chon Kadh Key Chhadange Attey Tera Bachiyan Da Vee Bura Haal Kar Devanga, Tera Varge Kutey Chamiyar Taan Saadi Gulami Karde Hun, Saadi Bahut Door Tak Pahunch Hai,” but while appearing as PW1, the accuser states that the accused had said,”Toon Kuteya Chuhrya Chamara Toon Saada Kujh Nahin Vigarr Sakda, Assi Tennu Pind Vichon Kadh Ke Chadange, Saadi Uppar Tak Pahunch Hai” besides threatening him that he would uproot from the village his children also and if the matter was reported to the police he would deal with him appropriately. While PW2, Mahinder Kaur has only said that accused used filthy language against her and her husband, the accuser, PW3, Lakha Singh and PW4, Dalbara Singh do not refer to any such language having been used by the accused. ” The Judge, Special Court further held that there was unexplained delay of eight days in lodging the complaint. The complainant had earlier also lodged the FIR against the accused and the delay in filing the complaint gained significance. The plea of the complainant that he had not approached the Police out of fear, could not be believed as earlier also he had lodged the FIR against the accused. Further, the prosecution had failed to establish on record the fact that the complainant had been hospitalized and some compromise had been effected between the parties on 24.4.2009. FIR (Exhibit P6) placed on record did not disclose that the accused had undertaken to pay the bills with regard to the treatment of the complainant. Further, it was not established on record that in connection with the FIR (Exhibit P6), the complainant had come to Sangrur to attend the hearing of the case on 16.12.2009. Major Singh, brother of the complainant and Lakha Singh, brother of the accused, who were, allegedly, present at the spot had not been examined during trial. The Judge, Special Court has further observed that Tota Singh, PW1, in his cross-examination, has stated that his father was living with his younger brother Roshan Singh and had executed a sale deed in favour of Roshan Singh, Harbilas Singh and Mohan Singh. The said sale deed was challenged by the complainant in a civil suit. Roshan Singh's wife Surjit Kaur had filed a complaint against the complainant,wherein, the accused Piara Singh was a witness. Hence, the possibility could not be ruled out that the complainant has falsely involved Piara Singh in this case with a view to pressurise him to depose in his favour in the complaint filed by Surjit Kaur against the complainant. In view of the above facts, the learned Trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misleading of evidence by the Trial Court. In view of the above facts, the learned Trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misleading of evidence by the Trial Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat 2002(1)RCR(Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. H ansa S ingh 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)scc 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference. In the facts and circumstances, the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused are just and proper and there is no merit in the criminal miscellaneous application seeking leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(4) Cr. P. C. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Since the application for leave to appeal has been dismissed, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rendered academic and is disposed of accordingly.