Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 972 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Madan Lal

2019-07-18

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present appeal has been preferred by the State against acquittal of respondent by Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Una in Session Case No. 1/2005, titled as State Vs. Madan Lal, in case FIR No. 138/2004, dated 26.2.2004, Registered in Police Station, Una under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the "Act" for short). 2. According to prosecution case, complainant PW-1 Gurcharan Singh had submitted an application Ex. PW-4/A to the Superintendent of Police Una on 16.2.2004, duly forwarded by Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Chatara on 15.2.2004, stating therein that when on 12.2.2004 at about 6:30 P.M., he had visited the house of respondent/accused in furtherance of his official duty as Chowkidar to serve notice issued by Panchayat to respondent to appear in the Panchayat Ghar of Gram Panchayat Chatara on 13.2.2004, respondent/accused had abused him and called him Kutta Chamar and had uttered that 'Teri Sali Kutte Chamar Di Tu Mujhe Saman Leakar Aya Sala Kutte Chamar'. According to PW-1 Gurcharan (complainant), this incident was witnessed by PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder Kumar. 3. The complaint submitted by PW-1 Gurcharan Singh was sent, from the office of Superintendent of Police Una, to Police Station Sadar whereupon PW-7 Inspector Surinder Sharma had registered FIR Ex. PW-7/A on 26.2.2004 and an endorsement to this effect Ex. PW-7/B was also made on Ex. PW-4/A. Thereafter investigation was carried out by PW-8 Anupam Sharma, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Una, who on 27.2.2004 recorded the statement of witnesses and on 9.3.2004 visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex. PW-8/A. On 27.3.2004 copies of parivar register Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/C pertaining to respective families of complainant and accused, copy of register of Panchayat Ex. PW-3/B, indicating the filing of complaint by PW-5 Rajinder Kumar against respondent/accused Madan Lal and copy of notice Ex. PW-3/D were also taken in possession from Gram Panchayat Chatara, vide memos Ex. PW-8/B and Ex. PW-8/C. During investigation, copy of pedigree tables Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B pertaining to PW-1 Gurcharan Singh (complainant) and respondent-accused Madan Lal respectively, were also taken into possession. 4. PW-3/D were also taken in possession from Gram Panchayat Chatara, vide memos Ex. PW-8/B and Ex. PW-8/C. During investigation, copy of pedigree tables Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B pertaining to PW-1 Gurcharan Singh (complainant) and respondent-accused Madan Lal respectively, were also taken into possession. 4. On completion of investigation challan was presented by PW-7 Inspector Surender Sharma in the Court and after finding prima facie complicity of the accused, charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was framed against the accused by the trial Court. On conclusion of trial respondent was acquitted. 5. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. After recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., though it was desired by respondent-accused to lead evidence in defence, however later on DWs were not examined and evidence was closed by the statement of learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Before scrutinizing the evidence, it is to be kept in mind that complainant is not a rustic villager, as he is serving as Chowidar in the Panchayat and thus having sufficient acquaintance with the Panchayat proceedings and the manner in which the matter is to be reported to the Panchayat or Police and further that the alleged incident had taken place during the course of his employment and thus as propounded by the prosecution, Vijay Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, examined as PW-4, is also in support of the complainant. Further that PW-5 Rajinder Kumar has filed a complaint against respondent in Panchayat and notice issued by Panchayat therein was assigned to be served upon respondent through complainant PW-1. For the first time as per date mentioned thereon, complaint was reduced into writing on 14.2.2004, which was forwarded by Pradhan on 15.2.2004 and was submitted in the office of Superintendent of Police, Una, wherefrom it was further sent to Police Station for registration of case and resultantly FIR Ex. PW-7/A was registered on 26.2.2004. 7. Delay in all cases, in lodging complaint, is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when cause of delay has been duly explained. In present case, in complaint Ex. PW-7/A was registered on 26.2.2004. 7. Delay in all cases, in lodging complaint, is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when cause of delay has been duly explained. In present case, in complaint Ex. PW-4/A and/or in deposition of complainant PW-1 Gurcharan Singh in the Court, no reason has been assigned by the complainant for not lodging the complaint/report either in the Panchayat or with the Police on the date of incident or a day thereafter, as the incident has allegedly occurred in the evening of 12.2.2004 at 6:30 P.M. There is a vague reference in the complaint as well as in deposition in the Court that matter was reported to Pradhan Gram Panchayat. But it is not disclosed when and how the matter was reported to Pradhan. As mentioned supra, Chowkidar and Pradhan of Panchayat are well conversant with the procedure of receiving and disposing the complaints in the Gram Panchayat. PW-8 Anupam Sharma, Investigating Officer had taken into possession extract of Panchyat register with respect to the complaint filed by PW-5 Rajinder Kumar against the respondent, but he has not bothered to verify the fact that the complainant, Gurcharan Singh had ever reported the matter to the Panchayat and if so, when it was reported and whether it was entered in Panchayat record or not. In its forwarding note dated 15.2.2014, Gram Panchayat, Pradhan is also silent about this. He has only stated that Chowkidar had informed him about the incident, whereafter on inquiring some persons, his complaint was found to be true and correct. Again PW-4 Vijay Singh Pradhan is silent about identity of those 'some persons'. According to complainant only PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder Kumar were present on the spot. PW-4 Vijay Singh, Pradhan has not stated that he had inquired these persons, but he has mentioned only about inquiry from some persons. 8. In his examination-in-chief in the Court, PW-1 Gurcharan Singh has stated that he had reported the matter to Panchayat Pradhan Sh. Vijay Singh, who had inquired the fact on his own level and thereafter report was lodged with the Police on 26.2.2004. 8. In his examination-in-chief in the Court, PW-1 Gurcharan Singh has stated that he had reported the matter to Panchayat Pradhan Sh. Vijay Singh, who had inquired the fact on his own level and thereafter report was lodged with the Police on 26.2.2004. He is completely silent about the submission of application to Panchayat on 14.2.2004 or 15.2.2004 and forwarding thereof by Gram Panchayat Pradhan on 15.2.2004 and also about submission of this application in the office of Superintendent of Police, Una on 16.2.2004, which indicates that he was not the person who had submitted this application on 14.2.2004 and also to Superintendent of Police, Una. In his examination-in-chief, he has not stated even a single word about submission of any application to Panchayat or Police, much less about complaint Ex. PW-4/A. While he was deposing in the Court neither this application Ex. PW-4/A nor his signatures thereon were got verified by the prosecution. 9. The averments made in Ex. PW-4/A with regard to manner in which the incident had taken place are also in variance with the versions in depositions of PW-1 Gurcharan Singh, PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder Kumar. In written complaint, it is stated that 'Teri Sali Kutte Chamar Di Tu Mujhe Saman Leakar Aya Sala Kutte Chamar', whereas in the Court PW-1 Gurcharan Singh has stated that 'Oh Kutaya Chamara Quo Aaya' and according to PW-2 Sher Singh, respondent-accused was uttering 'Chal Chal Oh Chamaru Ve Tu Maray Ghar May Aanawala Kon Hota Hai'. Whereas according to PW-5 Rajinder Kumar, respondent Madan Lal was saying 'Maa Chod Kutay Chammar Tu Itho Chalay Jaa Nehi To Sari Panchayat Nu Tang dayaga'. All these three witnesses have different version about the words uttered by respondent Madan Lal, which is again in variance with the complaint Ex. PW-4/A. 10. In his deposition in the Court, it is alleged by the complainant that when respondent Madan Lal abused him, he ran out from his house and had found PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder Singh on the road, where both of them had inquired him about the incident. There is no reference of any threat in his deposition. Whereas, in the written complaint, there is no reference about running out from the house of respondent. Further there is reference of threats extended by respondent-accused to kill the complainant. According to complaint Ex. There is no reference of any threat in his deposition. Whereas, in the written complaint, there is no reference about running out from the house of respondent. Further there is reference of threats extended by respondent-accused to kill the complainant. According to complaint Ex. PW-4/A, PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder Kumar had witnessed the incident, whereas as per deposition in the Court, they had inquired from the complainant about the incident on the road. 11. Pw-2 Sher Singh, in his deposition in the Court, has categorically stated that one Ravinder was also present on the spot at that time. He is silent about the presence of PW-5 Rajinder Kumar. The said Ravinder has neither been cited as a witness in the list of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution nor has been examined in the Court. PW-5 Rajinder Kumar is silent about presence of any other person on the spot like PW-1 complainant Gurcharan Singh. It creates doubt about the presence of PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder Kumar on the spot. At this juncture it is also noticeable that PW-5 Rajinder Kumar is none else, but the person who has initiated the proceedings in the Panchayat against respondent-accused and in which case notice has been alleged to have been served on respondent by PW-1 Gurcharan Singh. According to complainant PW-1 Gurcharan, PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder had inquired him about the incident, whereas as per PW-5 Rajinder Kumar, it is PW-2 Sher Singh, who had inquired from him that what had happened. 12. From the aforesaid self contradictory evidence on record, it cannot be inferred that the incident had taken place as alleged by the prosecution. Even if it is presumed that while complainant had visited the house of respondent-accused for serving notice, and respondent-accused had abused him, as alleged by complainant, then also case does not fall in the category of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, as the presence of PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-5 Rajinder Kumar on the spot is doubtful and further it is case of the complainant himself that they had met him outside the house of respondent-accused and had inquired about the incident from him. There is no evidence on record to establish that utterance of alleged words by respondent-accused is with intent to insult or humiliate the complainant in a place within the public view. There is no evidence on record to establish that utterance of alleged words by respondent-accused is with intent to insult or humiliate the complainant in a place within the public view. I draw support in this regard from Swaran Singh and others Vs. State through Standing Counsel and another, (2008) 8 SCC 435 . 13. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to lead cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In absence of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, possibility of false implication of respondent-accused on account of enmity, cannot be ruled out. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that where there is doubt, its benefit is to be extended to the accused. 14. Further the respondent has also having advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court, fortifying the presumption in his favour with respect to his innocence and there is nothing on record to rebut the same. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record completely and correctly. There is nothing on record to point out that acquittal of the respondent has caused miscarriage of justice or resulted into travesty of justice. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out. 15. Accordingly, present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by or on behalf of respondent are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.