In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision dismissing charges of assault under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against five individuals due to mounting reasonable doubts and failed prosecution evidence.
Leave to appeal against the acquittal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 20,2013
Piara Lal ................................................. Appellant Versus
State of Haryana and others.................. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Present: Mr. T.P.S. Makkar, Advocate for the appellant.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
This criminal appeal is against the judgment dated 13.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby all the accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them the benefit of doubt.
A criminal complaint under Section 190 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial Court alleging that on 7.5.2007 the accused had quarreled with the complainant regarding a street. On an intervention of the villagers and relatives the accused apologized for their mistake and
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 2 ] accused No.6-Deepak Kumar, Sarpanch, took the responsibility that accused would not quarrel with the complainant. However, on 23.7.2007 at about 1930-2000 hours, accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered the house of complainant armed with lathis and wanted to teach them a lesson for seeking apology in the presence of Panchayat on 7.5.2007. The complainant was given beatings with slaps and punches and lathi blow was given on the back and legs of the complainant. Kashmiri Lal and Balbir Chand came to rescue him and they were also given beatings. The alarm raised by the complainant attracted the villagers and thereafter the accused fled from the spot. After the incident, the complainant along with Kashmiri Lal, Balbir Chand and Surinder Singh went to the Sarpanch. On hearing their complaint, the Sarpanch became enraged and utter the following words:-
“Sale Dhed Kamin Kute Bajigar, Ladaie Karke Bar Bar Mere Pas AA Jata Hai, Tuje Pata Nahi Dusri Party Mere Aadmi Hai, mere pass se bhag ja, nahi to mere se bhi maar khakar jaiga.”
On objection being raised by Surinder Singh, Deepak Kumar-accused No.6 stated as under:-
“Tu Bhi Es Dhed Kamin Kute Bajigar Ki Himayat Mein Aaye ho, tumse jo banta hai kar lo, mein es kute kamin ke sath kahi nahi jaunga, tum se jo
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 3 ] hota hai kar lo mera koi kuch nahi bigar sakta.” Thereafter, the complaint was made to the SHO.
After recording the preliminary evidence in which
the complainant appeared as CW1, Kashmiri Lal as CW2 and Surinder Singh as CW3 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 148, 452, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined Piara Lal (complainant) as PW1, Surinder Singh as PW2, Kashmiri Lal las PW3 and Balbir Chand as PW4. The documentary evidence of the prosecution is as under:-
| Ex.P1 | Copy of complaint dated 24.7.2007 addressed to S.H.O. Police Station, Pehowa. |
|---|---|
| Ex.P2 | Complaint dated 5.9.2007 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. |
| Ex.P3 | Copyof Schedule Caste Certificate of complainant. |
| Ex.P4 | Complaint. |
| Ex.P5 | Statement of Surinder Singh under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
In defence the accused examined EHC Manjeet Singh as DW1, ASI Baljit Singh as DW2, Shri Hari Ram Sharma, retired DSP as DW3 and Jai Singh, retired DSP as DW4.
On the basis of evidence led, the judgment of
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 4 ] acquittal is to be examined as under:-
1.Accused Nos. 1 to 5 belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and therefore they could not be charged under the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Documents Ex.D20 to D24 were the Caste Certificates of accused Nos. 1 to 5 showing that they were members of the Scheduled Caste. Therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against accused Nos. 1 to 5.
It was pointed out by the defence that after the examination-in-chief he was cross-examined on 10.9.2011 and he made improvements in his cross-examination with
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 5 ] regard to fulfilment of ingredients under Section 452 IPC. The contradiction or improvement made in his crossexamination is after a gap of a month. PW1 Piara Lal stated that quarrel lasted for 30-40 minutes and 4-5 persons were causing injuries to him with the help of Dandas. There is no medical evidence in support of the charge that he was inflicted injuries by 4-5 persons with Dandas. In an incident which lasted for 30-40 minutes the medical evidence became necessary. It was further pointed out by the defence that complainant PW1 was in possession of 15-16 marlas of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat and on 3.4.2007 an application for eviction was filed by accused No.6 in the Court of Collector First Grade, Pehowa in which the complainant had filed his written statement Ex.D1 admitting therein his possession over the land of Gram Panchayat. The present criminal complaint is a counter-blast to the launching of proceedings for ejectment of the complainant from the land of the Gram Panchayat. PW1 admitted that ejectment petition against him was filed by accused No.6 at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 5.
Another important aspect is that Kashmiri Lal while deposing as PW3 and Balbir Chand while deposing as PW4 did not state any where that they were given beatings by the accused. However, in para 4 of the complaint made to the police the complainant had alleged that when Kashmiri
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 6 ]
Lal and Balbir Chand were rescuing the complainant from the accused they were also beaten up by the accused. In the written application dated 4.9.2007 made to the police the complainant had mentioned about the above stated facts but while appearing as PW3 Kashmiri Lal and PW4 Balbir Chand in the witness box did not support this theory. Moreover, as per the depositions of DW2-ASI Baljit Singh, DW3- Retired DSP Hari Ram Sharma and DW4-retired DSP Jai Singh on an application made by the complainant dated 4.9.2007 HC Baljit Singh investigated the matter and took necessary action. The application was Ex.D2 and the report of HC Baljit Singh was Ex.D17 which was approved by DW4retired DSP Jai Singh (Ex.D18) and found the complaint to be false. It was further deposed by DW1 to DW4 that there was some family function on the date of occurrence and there could be no possibility of fight as alleged by the complainant.
In view of the findings recorded by the trial Court and the evidence led by the prosecution and defence that no such incident had taken place as PW2-Surinder Singh has resiled from the story of the prosecution and an inquiry which was conducted by DW4-retired DSP Jai Singh complaint was found to be false. Complainant while appearing in examination-in-chief and thereafter in his crossexamination has made certain improvements about the
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 7 ] place of incident. PW1 while appearing in examination-inchief stated that the incident took place in a street whereas in cross-examination he made certain improvements that the incident took place in the courtyard of his house. Moreover, Kashmiri Lal while appearing as PW3 and Retired DSP Jai Singh as PW4 did not support the allegations in the complaint that they were also inflicted injuries by the accused while rescuing the complainant from the clutches of the accused. In the absence of the MLR the essential ingredients of Section 323 IPC could not be made out either. Therefore, the prosecution case became doubtful and the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 452/323 read with Sections 148 and 149 calls for no interference by this Court.
3.The allegation against accused No.6 was that when the complainant along with Kashmiri Lal, Balbir Chand and Surinder Singh had gone to the house of accused No.6Sarpanch Deepak Kumar, he had uttered derogatory words which amounted to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
PW1 Piara Lal and PW3 Kashmiri Lal were real brothers whereas Balbir Chand PW4 was their cousin and it was PW2 Surinder Singh who was not related to them and did not support the prosecution version. As per the
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 8 ]
deposition of PW2 Surinder Singh when he was returning from his fields on 25.7.2007 he was informed by Piara Lal PW1, Kashmiri Lal PW3 and Balbir Chand PW4 that a quarrel had taken place between Piara Lal and Balbir Chand etc. They disclosed that they were going to the house of the Sarpanch for making a complaint in this regard. He accompanied them to the house of the Sarpanch. No conversation took place between Piara Lal and Sarpanch in his presence. Thereafter, he returned back home. He did not stay there when Deepak Kumar Sarpanch was found present in the street and Surinder Singh along with Piara Lal, Kashmiri Lal and Balbir Chand had gone there to make a complaint against Dalbir Chand etc. He did not want to say anything more. As per the deposition of PW2 accused No.6Deepak Kumar did not utter any words as alleged in the complaint to the complainant as mentioned under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Since PW2-Surinder Singh who was not the relation of the complainant did not support the prosecution version, therefore, the allegation that accused No.6 had uttered the derogatory words could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The possibility that this complaint was made as a counter-blast to the election proceedings should also make a dent in the prosecution version.
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. A-989-MA of 2012 (O&M) [ 9 ]
The incident took place at 21:30 hours. No person was present at 21:30 hours. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are missing.
Moreover, as per the inquiry conducted by DW4Retired DSP Jai Singh the complaint was found to be false. Hence, the finding recorded that accused No.6 was not guilty of an offence under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not seem to be probable.
After examining the case from all angles, in the case of the prosecution there are several reasonable doubts and the evidence has failed to satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court about the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has failed to discharge its duty.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20.8.2013 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE
Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.27 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused violated Sections 323, 148, 452, 506 and 149 of the IPC based on the evidence regarding the alleged assault.
Whether the accused No. 6 committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for uttering provocative words.
Whether the application for leave to appeal against the acquittal should be allowed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Piara Lal
State of Haryana
Deepak Kumar
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
