complainant to sign the muster roll from 16.5.2005
to 31.5.2005 but the complainant did not want to
sign, and that he was threatened and some words
relating to his caste were uttered, viz. "you
belonging to lower caste". When questioned, the
prosecution could not explain from the FIR as to
what was the necessity for the applicants to utter
those words with reference to the caste of the
complainant. Because admittedly by permitting or
calling upon the complainant to sign the muster roll
from 16.5.2005 to 31.5.2005, attempt of the
applicants was to show that the said complainant
attended the College or Hostel. The applicants, in
fact, were favouring the complainant by permitting
him to sign the muster roll, even though he had not
signed the muster roll for 16 days might be due to
his negligence or due to his absence. But this
incident as alleged in the FIR does not show any
provocation at all to the applicants to utter any
insulting words to the complainant. When applicants
were obliging the complainant in such a manner,
there was no need to utter any insulting words and
if the complainant was really refusing to sign they
could have closed the muster roll and asked the
complainant to face the consequences of his absence
