Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 391 (HP)

Inderjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-04-01

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 16.11.2006, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 15-N/VII of 2005, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 506 IPC was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 506 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that PW-2 complainant Pritam Chand filed a complaint Ext. PW-2/A in the Special Court on 24.5.2004 alleging therein that he and accused i.e. appellant Inderjeet Singh were permanent residents of Village and Post Office Guryal, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. The complainant belongs to scheduled caste (sub-caste Chamar) and the accused belongs to Rajput community. On 30.3.2004, at about 8:30 AM, when the complainant returned to his house from the fields, he found that the accused had come to his house. He was threatening and abusing his old parents and other lady members of the family. The complainant requested the accused not to do so, however, the accused uttered following words against him; “Chamara teri yeh auquat ki tu mera sath zabaan larae”. He requested him not to repeat the expression “chamar” repeatedly. However, the accused threatened to kill him. In the meantime, Bishan Singh PW-3, brother of the complainant reached on the spot. The accused also threatened Bishan Singh. PW-1 Sukh Dev son of Bhim Singh, caste Rajput also reached the spot and requested the accused not to abuse complainant and his family members. The accused replied in the following words; “Tusan Rajputan chamar sar par charah rakhey hain”. The complainant moved an application on 31.3.2004 before the Pradhan Scheduled Castes Welfare Sabha, Tehsil Nurpur. The complaint was sent by the Pradhan to the SHO, Police Station, Nurpur on 4.4.2004 after making enquiry on the spot. However, the police did not take any action. The accused replied in the following words; “Tusan Rajputan chamar sar par charah rakhey hain”. The complainant moved an application on 31.3.2004 before the Pradhan Scheduled Castes Welfare Sabha, Tehsil Nurpur. The complaint was sent by the Pradhan to the SHO, Police Station, Nurpur on 4.4.2004 after making enquiry on the spot. However, the police did not take any action. PW-4 Raj Kumar, brother of complainant moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala requesting him for making immediate inquiry and taking suitable action against the accused on 12.5.2004. It is, in these circumstances, the complaint was filed under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. The Special Court framed charges against the accused under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act and under Section 506 IPC on 19.1.2006. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 4 witnesses, namely, Sukh Dev Singh PW-1, Pritam Singh, PW-2, Bishan Singh PW-3 and Raj Kumar PW-4. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the prosecution case. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 16.11.2006. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Sukh Dev Singh testified that he knew the accused and complainant. According to him, complainant belongs to “chamar” caste and accused belongs to “Rajput” caste. On 30.3.2004, at about 8:00 AM, he was going to his fields. He was passing by the side of the house of the complainant. Accused was present there near the house of the complainant. The accused was abusing the complainant. He was calling him “chamar” repeatedly. He told him that complainant could not compete with him being a scheduled caste. He advised the accused not to do so. The complainant felt humiliated. The family members of the complainant were also present there. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his house is about 500 meters away from the house of the complainant. He admitted that during the previous night, one woman had died adjacent to his house. He advised the accused not to do so. The complainant felt humiliated. The family members of the complainant were also present there. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his house is about 500 meters away from the house of the complainant. He admitted that during the previous night, one woman had died adjacent to his house. She was cremated on the next day at about 2:00 PM. He had not gone to bring coffin for her. He did not enter the house of the complainant. He had not accompanied the complainant to the Pradhan of the Scheduled Castes in connection with this case. In his further cross-examination, he admitted that the daughter and wife of the accused were the candidates for Anganwari teacher. 7. PW-2 Pritam Chand is the complainant. He deposed that he came back to his house from the fields on 30.3.2004 at about 8:30 AM. When he returned to his house from the fields, he found that the accused was standing in his verandah. The accused was threatening and abusing his old parents and other lady members. He requested the accused not to do so, however, the accused uttered following words against him; “Tum chamaron ke dimag charh gay hain aur tum chamar sar par baith gaye hain”. He requested him not to repeat the expression “chamar” repeatedly and speak decently. The accused asked him to call his niece Renu Bala, however, he told him to talk instead of calling her. However, the accused threatened to kill him and told him that “Oai chamara toon mere saath jawan lara raha hai”. He was humiliated and insulted by the utterances of the accused. He asked him not to behave in that manner. In the meantime, Bishan Singh, brother of the complainant reached on the spot. The accused also threatened Bishan Singh. Sukh Dev also reached on the spot and requested the accused not to abuse the complainant and his family members. However, accused told Sukh Dev that rajputs have spoiled the minds of the “chamars”. He moved the complainant Mark “A” to the Pradhan “Anusuchit Jaati Kalyan Sabha, Nurpur”. The complaint was forwarded by the Pradhan to the SHO, Police Station, Nurpur on 4.4.2004 after making enquiry on the spot. However, the police did not take any action. However, accused told Sukh Dev that rajputs have spoiled the minds of the “chamars”. He moved the complainant Mark “A” to the Pradhan “Anusuchit Jaati Kalyan Sabha, Nurpur”. The complaint was forwarded by the Pradhan to the SHO, Police Station, Nurpur on 4.4.2004 after making enquiry on the spot. However, the police did not take any action. Raj Kumar, his brother moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala requesting him to make immediate inquiry and take suitable action against the accused on 12.5.2004. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not written in the complaint that Sukh Dev had also come on the spot and in his presence the accused called his brother as “chamar”. 8. PW-3 Bishan Singh is the brother of the complainant. According to him, they belong to chamar caste and accused was Rajput. On 20.3.2004 (sic 30.3.2004), at about 8/8:30 AM, he returned from his fields. At that time, he noticed that the accused was abusing his brother Pritam by saying that he is a “chamar”. In the meantime, Sukh Dev also reached on the spot who asked the accused not to harass them. On this the accused replied that “tum rajputon ne inko sir per chadah diya hai”. Thereafter, he went from the spot. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there were 5-7 houses in their neighbourhood. 9. PW-4 Raj Kumar testified that the complainant is his brother. On 30.3.2004 when he returned from his work, he was told by the complainant Pritam Chand that the accused had come to their house in the morning and he had abused Pritam Chand in the name of caste and insulted him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that complaint Ext. PW-2/B was written by his maternal Uncle Des Raj. The police visited the spot but they were not informed about the visit. 10. PW-2 Pritam Chand deposed that the original complaint Ext. PW-2/B was written by his brother Raj Kumar at their house. However, PW-4 Raj Kumar deposed that Ext. PW-2/B, complaint was written by his maternal Uncle Sh. Des Raj. According to the prosecution, at the time of incident on 30.3.2004, PW-1 Sukh Dev was present on the spot. He requested the accused not to utter derogatory remarks against the complainant and his family members. However, PW-4 Raj Kumar deposed that Ext. PW-2/B, complaint was written by his maternal Uncle Sh. Des Raj. According to the prosecution, at the time of incident on 30.3.2004, PW-1 Sukh Dev was present on the spot. He requested the accused not to utter derogatory remarks against the complainant and his family members. However, fact of the matter is that the name of Sukh Dev has not been mentioned in the complaint. PW-2 Pritam Chand has admitted in his cross-examination specifically that he did not write in the complaint that Sukh Dev had also come to the spot and accused called his brother as ‘chamar’. In case PW-1 Sukh Dev was present on the spot, his name ought to have been mentioned in the complaint. There were 5-7 houses in the neighbourhood of complainant’s house but no witness from these houses was cited by the prosecution. 11. PW-1 Sukh Dev has admitted that his daughter and wife of the accused were the candidates for Anganwari worker. This could be the reason for PW-1 Sukh Dev to depose falsely against the accused. Neither the parents nor the sister-in-law of the complainant were cited as witnesses by the complainant who were admittedly present in the house on 30.3.2004. 12. Now, as far as the statement of PW-4 Raj Kumar is concerned, it is hearsay since he was told by complainant Pritam Chand that accused had come to their house in the morning and he had abused Pritam Chand in the name of caste and had insulted him. He was not present on the spot. 13. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act as well as under Section 506 IPC. The learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial Court dated 16.11.2006 is set aside.