Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1181 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ranjit Singh

2017-10-18

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred by State against acquittal of respondents vide judgment dated 29.2.2008 passed in Sessions case No. 8-G/VII/2007, by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code initiated by the complainant by filing a complaint in the Court and also police report filed in pursuance thereto. 2. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State and learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 4th July, 2005 complainant PW-1 Smt. Biro Devi had sent an application/written complaint to various authorities including Superintendent of Police Kangra for taking action against Ranjit Singh, respondent No. 1 and his supporters for damaging her property and also to grant of Rs.13,000/- for loss caused to her kitchen by these persons. On 26.9.2005, a private complaint was preferred by PW-1 Biro Devi in the court of learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge exercising the power of Special Court under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) Kangra at Dharamshala against respondents Ranjit Singh and Karan Singh, stating therein that both of them, in presence of some police officials accompanying them, entered her premises during night hours and demolished a portion of kitchen constructed by her and also insulted, threatened and mentally harassed her in absence of her sons by calling her “Tum Chamaro Na Gand Dala Hua Ha”. Learned Special Judge had referred this complaint to learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehra for preliminary inquiry, who in turn, after inquiry and police report, committed the case to learned Special Judge against the respondents for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Special Judge framed charges against the respondents for commission of offence supra, which were denied by the respondents and trial was commenced. 5. Prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove its case and after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondents have not examine any witness in their defence. On conclusion of trial, respondents stand acquitted, hence present appeal. 6. Complainant Smt. Biro Devi has been examined as PW-1. 5. Prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove its case and after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondents have not examine any witness in their defence. On conclusion of trial, respondents stand acquitted, hence present appeal. 6. Complainant Smt. Biro Devi has been examined as PW-1. In support of her testimony, her daughter-in-law and daughter have been examined as PW-2 and PW-3. Plea of respondents to discard the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 on the ground that they are closely related to each other and also with the complainant PW-1 and thus are highly interested witnesses, is not tenable as the statements of interested or related witnesses are not liable to be doubted and rejected outrightly only on the said reason. However, the testimony of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized more carefully. 7. In present case, it is case of the complainant that none else except family members and close relatives of the complainant were present on the spot at the time of alleged incident, therefore, PW-2 and PW-3, in these facts and circumstances, can be considered as most natural witnesses and therefore, their testimony, for having relation with complainant and interest in the subject matter, is not to be rejected. However, for the reasons discussed hereinafter, I find no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be rejected. 8. It is admitted case of PW-1 Biro Devi that immediately after incident on 4.7.2005, she had sent a written complaint to various authorities with respect to the alleged incident. Copy whereof has been proved on record as PW-1/A and for not taking any action on this complaint, she had filed a private complaint Ex. PW-1/D in the Court with respect to the same incident. Perusal of these documents indicates the falsehood of the case of the complainant. Complaint Ex. PW-1/A has been submitted against respondent Ranjit Singh and his supporters, but not against respondent No. 2, Karan Singh, who happens to be Forest Guard, Forest Beat Chhabar at that time. Whereas in complaint Ex. PW- 1/D, there is no reference of supporters of Ranjit Singh, but the complaint has been filed against Ranjit Singh and Karan Singh (Forest Guard). No complaint has been filed against those police officials, who were alleged to be instrumental in commission of offence by respondents. Further complaint Ex. Whereas in complaint Ex. PW- 1/D, there is no reference of supporters of Ranjit Singh, but the complaint has been filed against Ranjit Singh and Karan Singh (Forest Guard). No complaint has been filed against those police officials, who were alleged to be instrumental in commission of offence by respondents. Further complaint Ex. PW-1/A is silent about the commission of offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as in the entire complaint there is not even a whisper about anything said by respondent No. 1 or his supporters to humiliate the complainant or her family members/relatives, so as to construe that respondents have committed an offence under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 9. Though the delay in lodging complaint by complainant might have been explained on the ground that complainant had filed an application/complaint Ex. PW-1/A on 4.7.2005, immediately after the incident and it was for inaction on the part of authorities/police, the complainant was constrained to file private complaint Ex. PW-1/D on 26.9.2005. However, for material contradictions in these two complaints Ex. PW-1/A and PW-1/D, as discussed supra, testimonies of prosecution spot witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be relied to convict the respondents for commission of offence charged against them, as these contradictions are basic in nature and affects the genesis of the prosecution story. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for want of cogent, reliable, trustworthy and convincing evidence against the respondents. 10. PW-4, Pushp Raj, Secretary Gram Panchayat has been examined to prove payment of house tax by family of complainant. His statement has become irrelevant to determine guilt of respondents for unreliable testimony of complainant. 11. Moreover, respondents have advantage of having acquitted by the trial Court, fortifying presumption of their innocence in their favour and the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus to lead sufficient evidence to rebut such presumption. On scrutiny of evidence on record, it can be said that learned trial Court has appreciated evidence on record completely and correctly. The acquittal of respondents has not caused any travesty of justice or has not caused miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by or on behalf of respondents are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately.