Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1139 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Jai Chand

2016-06-23

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 22.1.2007, by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2006 whereby it acquitted the respondent (for short ‘accused’) for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.5.2007 a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in relation to the land comprised in Khata No. 69 min, Khatoni No. 192, Khasra No. 3087/2019, measuring 10 marlas, situated in Tika Dain, Mauja Lohdar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P stands preferred by the accused against one Smt. Shakuntla Devi, her son Jagdev, daughter in law Smt. Anjana Devi and complainant Dhani Ram Shukla in the Court of learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. The suit aforesaid came to be dismissed under judgment of the learned trial Court comprised in Ex.P-2. A further appeal there from as stood preferred before the learned Appellate Court sequelled dismissal under a judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Court comprised in Ex.P-3. As per the complainant he belongs to village Balh Bagh which is at a distance of about 15 kms from village Dain, where the land which was subject matter of the suit exists, he has no landed property/cow-shed as well as he had no concern or relation with unknown lady smt. Shakuntla Devi her son an her daughter-in-law. However, even despite that accused arraigned him as co-defendant in the suit aforesaid as reflected in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the plaint (Ex.P- 1). The victim/complainant stands aggrieved by the factum of the institution of frivolous Civil Suit against him by the accused which he was made to contest for three years sequelling loss of his reputation besides lowering his estimation in public. It is further alleged by him that in order to defend the appeal he had to incur expenditure of Rs.10,000/- as counsel’s fee. It stands further alleged by the complainant that the accused had harassed him by committing atrocities on him by way of initiating legal proceedings against him without his fault. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. It stands further alleged by the complainant that the accused had harassed him by committing atrocities on him by way of initiating legal proceedings against him without his fault. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. Accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Section 3 (i) (viii) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, he chose to lead evidence in defence and examined two DWs. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. A civil suit stood instituted on 10.5.2002 against the complainant by the accused. The suit aforesaid instituted by the accused against the complainant was qua the complainant arrayed as co-defendant therein holding unauthorized occupation of a cowshed. The suit came to be dismissed under a judgment of the learned trial Court comprised in Ex.P-2. 9. A civil suit stood instituted on 10.5.2002 against the complainant by the accused. The suit aforesaid instituted by the accused against the complainant was qua the complainant arrayed as co-defendant therein holding unauthorized occupation of a cowshed. The suit came to be dismissed under a judgment of the learned trial Court comprised in Ex.P-2. A further appeal there from as stood preferred by the aggrieved plaintiff before the learned Appellate Court also sequelled dismissal, dismissal whereof stands comprised in a judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Court embodied in Ex.P-3. The victim/ complainant stands aggrieved by the factum of the institution of a frivolous Civil Suit against him by the accused constraining him to contest it for three years sequelling a loss to his reputation besides lowering of his estimation in public. Even though, the victim/ complainant arrayed as a co-defendant in the Civil Suit instituted by the accused is uncontrovertedly a member of a Scheduled Caste community, consequently the mere institution of a civil suit against him by the accused, a member of non-scheduled caste community, would not perse render the victim/complainant to espouse here before of thereupon any of the penal provisions engrafted in the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) standing infringed by the accused unless palpable evidence stood adduced by the victim/ complainant of the accused publicly making derogatory aspersions qua his caste whereupon his reputation stood undermined in society. Since there occurs no communication either in the apposite complaint instituted by the victim/complainant of the accused publicly making derogatory utterances qua his caste nor any evidence standing obviously adduced qua the aforesaid facet. Consequently when the aforesaid manifestations are enjoined to be embodied in the apposite complaint for securing an inference of any of the penal provisions constituted in “the Act” standing attracted. Contrarily with apposite non-manifestations therein, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. Consequently when the aforesaid manifestations are enjoined to be embodied in the apposite complaint for securing an inference of any of the penal provisions constituted in “the Act” standing attracted. Contrarily with apposite non-manifestations therein, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. Be that as it may if the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are not sustained it would give leeway to any member of a Scheduled Caste Community, to merely on the anvil of civil proceedings standing instituted against him by a member of a non Scheduled caste community seek attraction against him of the penal provisions engrafted in “the Act”, attraction whereof on the score aforesaid would detract from the salutary purpose of the Act, of only on the apposite penal ingredients constituted therein standing satiated by adduction of cogent evidence thereupon alone Courts of law standing coaxed to punish a member of a non-scheduled caste community for his committing a penal delinquency upon a member of a scheduled caste community besides would also preclude any member of a non-scheduled caste community to redress his grievances before the Civil Court concerned by launching civil proceedings against a member of a scheduled caste community. 11. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its having misappreciated the evidence on record or its having omitted to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit any interference. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.