Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 406 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. KHATTAR SINGH

2013-05-08

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan acquitting the respondent herein for offences under Sections 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC & ST Act). The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant PW1 Madan Singh, resident of village Dakkar, Tehsil Shillai is belonged to Scheduled Caste as he is 'Koli' by caste, had constructed a house at hospital road in Shillai Dhar which adjoins the house of the accused, who had constructed a septic tank adjacent to the house of the complainant. On 13.8.2004 at around 6 p.m., the complainant informed the accused that the septic tank constructed by him is overflowing and human excreta is leaking on the roof of his house. He asked the accused to change the location of the tank at which he used some derogatory language against the complainant and called him 'Kolta' saying that since he is not Pandit, he is a 'Kolta'. He also told him that he would not remove the tank. 2. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of its case. On the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was no intention to insult the complainant by his caste. The words attributed are: "Gand Saf Karna to Tumahara Kolton Ka Kam Hai" (It is the duty of Kolta's to clean rubbish). The learned trial Court relying upon the decision of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Ram Prakash and Others, (2005) 1 Shim. LC 206, holds that since there was no intention to humiliate or insult the complainant, no offence was made out. It is urged by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the acquittal is not warranted as the learned trial Court has misconstrued the evidence. 3. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the intention to insult was inherent in the manner in which the term was used. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I note from the evidence that the genesis of the entire incident between the accused and the complainant is with respect to the construction of a septic tank and that there are number of cases pending between them. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I note from the evidence that the genesis of the entire incident between the accused and the complainant is with respect to the construction of a septic tank and that there are number of cases pending between them. I also note that the trend of cross examination of the complainant reveals that he, in fact, has been litigating with other villagers also but these facts per se are not sufficient to exonerate the respondent-accused but at the same time the important fact which requires consideration by this Court is to judge the veracity of the complainant. PW2 Smt. Gangi Devi states that the complainant is not Pandit by caste and she admits that the construction of septic tank was the genesis of the entire dispute. To the same effect is the evidence of PW3 Sh. Basti Ram, who in cross examination admits that in the area which they resides male and female of 'Koli' caste are called 'Kolta' and 'Kolti' in common parlance. PW4 Baju Ram says that the word 'Kolta' was used by the accused as the complainant is not a Pandit. To similar effect is the evidence of PW5 Sunil Singh. This is the entirety of the evidence on record. The assessment of the evidence clearly indicates that the dispute arises over encroachment of land/construction of a septic tank. The evidence of the prosecution as considered (supra) clearly indicates that the term used by the accused is common and used freely. I do not find anything in the judgment of the learned trial Court which would persuade me to interfere in this appeal. The evidence as assessed clearly indicates that there was no intention of insulting the complainant. In these circumstances, there is thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged.