Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2400 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Santosh Kumar

2016-11-12

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 17.07.2008 by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2007, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent (for short 'accused’) for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bohra Ram is a member of a Scheduled Castes known as “Chamar” as per the certificate of Caste Ex. PW-1/F on record. He was posted as Head Teacher at Government Primary School, Garsian. On 15th November, 2006, he made a statement Ex. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before the police that on 11th October, 2006 at about 10.30 a.m., he was present in his school on duty. At that time, accused Santosh Kumar, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Hanoh approached him. The complainant offered him a chair and also showed him the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan register on demand. The accused checked the register. The complainant had spent Rs. 350/- vide Resolution No. 32 in accordance with the rules. The accused asked him as to why he had spent the amount without his permission. The complainant told him that he had spent the amount as per the directions received from the Centre. Santosh Kumar was enraged by this reply and called him “TU BIGRA HUA HAI, TU CHAMAR HAI, TU DAGI HAI” and told him that he would see him and get him transferred. It was further stated that Salochna Devi, Lady Teacher, Kashmir Singh, Water carrier, Jayanti Devi and Gian Chand were also present there who witnessed the incident. It was further reported that he had referred the matter to the Director of Education also. It was requested that action may be taken against the accused in accordance with law. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered against the accused vide formal FIR Ex. PW-7/A. During the investigation of the case, the police prepared the site plan Ex. PW-8/A. The police also took into possession the Caste Certificate Ex. PW-1/F, copy of Resolution No. 32, Ex. PW-1/C, copy of Bill of expenditure of Rs. 350/- Ex. PW-1/D, copy of compromise deed Ex. PW-7/A. During the investigation of the case, the police prepared the site plan Ex. PW-8/A. The police also took into possession the Caste Certificate Ex. PW-1/F, copy of Resolution No. 32, Ex. PW-1/C, copy of Bill of expenditure of Rs. 350/- Ex. PW-1/D, copy of compromise deed Ex. PW-1/E, copy of Circular issued by the Director Land Records carrying the letter of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for H.P. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the challan was prepared against the accused under Section 3 (I) (x) of the Act and the same was put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Hamirpur on 13th December, 2006. The learned Magistrate committed the trial to the Court of learned Special Judge, Hamirpur vide order, dated 7th May, 2007 after supplying copies of the challan to the accused. 3. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a challan was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. A charge stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On closure of 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. He chooses to lead evidence in defence. 6. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 7. The learned Additional 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 mis-appreciation by it of the relevant 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. 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 has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record by the learned trial Court and theirs not necessitating any 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. The purported vituperative penal casteist utterances pronounced upon the complainant by the accused-respondent herein, stood testified by the complainant while deposing as PW-1. His testification has attained corroborative vigour from the testifications of other prosecution witnesses wherebeforewhom they stood purportedly pronounced by the accusedrespondent herein. The testification of the complainant whereto corroborative vigour stood purveyed by the testifications of prosecution witnesses wherebefore whom the penal vituperative casteist utterances stood pronounced by the accused upon the complainant, would per se, if unbereft of any taint of inter se or intra se contradictions facilitate this Court to record an order of conviction upon the accused/respondent. However, even if the complainant besides Gian Chand, Kashmir Singh and Jayanti Devi wherebeforewhom the penal vituperative casteist utterances stood purportedly pronounced by the accused/respondent upon the complainant are bereft of any stain of any inter se or intra se contradictions occurring in their respective examinations in chief vis.a.vis. their respective cross-examination besides in their respective testifications, would not for reasons hereafterstated, foment, any conclusion from this Court qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court warranting interference, significantly when on an incisive reading of their testifications visible upsurgences occur qua theirs holding inimicality towards the accused whereupon hence they stand denuded of their probative tenacity conspicuously when given their evident proven inimicality vis.a.vis the accused/respondent herein spurs an inference qua theirs thereupon standing goaded to falsely testify qua the guilt of the accused. Also their proven inimicality erodes the truthfulness besides the creditworthiness of the prosecution witnesses whereupon obviously even if their respective testifications are bereft of any other uncreditworthy taint, their respective testifications merely on anvil of proven evident inimicality nursed by them qua the accused hence stand denuded of their vigour. 10. Also their proven inimicality erodes the truthfulness besides the creditworthiness of the prosecution witnesses whereupon obviously even if their respective testifications are bereft of any other uncreditworthy taint, their respective testifications merely on anvil of proven evident inimicality nursed by them qua the accused hence stand denuded of their vigour. 10. An incisive traversing of the record unfolds qua the accused while holding the office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned his making a complaint against the complainant herein, complaint whereof stands comprised in Ext.DW-1/A wherewithin recitals are held qua the complainant herein unauthorisedly denying the respondent herein to access the school register. It is evident qua Ext.DW-1/A standing transmitted to the Chief Minister. Obviously thereupon it is inevitable to record a conclusion of prior to the institution of the instant complaint by PW-1 against the accused, the former nursing a grouse besides rearing a vendetta against the accused/respondent, expression whereof found its outlet in his recording a complaint against the accused-respondent, complaint whereof when stands obviously stained with a vice of vendetta besides malafides it holds no vigour besides the testification of PW-1 in consonance therewith stands denuded of its probative sinew. 11. Likewise, the testimony of PW-2 in whose presence the penal vituperative casteist utterances stood purportedly made by the accused/respondent also acquires a taint of interestedness besides a taint of its standing generated by malafides arising from the factum of his in his cross-examination acquiescing qua his wife lodging a complaint against him in the Gram Panchayat concerned embodying therein a grouse qua his not maintaining her. Also with his acquiescing in his cross-examination qua the aforesaid complaint on the aforesaid ground made against him by his wife before the Gram Panchayat concerned generating issuance of notice upon him by the accused/respondent significantly renders his testimony to be discardable especially when it stands reared by his thereupon nursing a vendetta against the respondent herein. Moreover, the vigour, if any, carried by the testification of PW-3 in purported corroboration to the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2 qua the charge to which the accused respondent stood subjected to trial also stands belittled arising from the fact of his in his crossexamination acquiescing to the suggestion of one Manohar instituting a complaint before the accused/respondent against his mother alleging therein qua the latter uprooting his plants. In aftermath when alike the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 his testimony when also stands coloured by a taint of vendetta nursed by him against the accused respondent spurring from the latter holding an inquiry upon the complaint aforesaid made before him by one Manohar Lal against his mother rendering it hence to not acquire any probative sinew. 12. Apart therefrom the purported vituperative penal casteist utterances stood made by the accused respondent upon the complainant on 11th October, 2006 whereas an F.I.R qua the aforesaid factum comprised in Ext.7/A stood registered at the Police Station concerned on 15th November, 2006. Obviously a delay of 32 to 34 days has visibly occurred since the penal misdemeanor ascribed by PW-1 to the respondent vis.a.vis. it standing reported to the Police Station concerned. The aforesaid delay has remained inexplicated by way of any tangible sound explanation standing purveyed by the complainant. As a corollary, the omission of the complainant to with promptitude report the penal misdemeanor ascribed by him to accused respondent when construed in entwinement with the factum of the prime prosecution witnesses testifying qua the relevant occurrence with evident inimicality nursed by them vis.a.vis the accused/respondent herein begets an obvious inference of the entire incident unraveled by them holding no truth rather it being a sequel of concoction and invention. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Special Judge has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned Special Judge does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgement is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.