Delhi District Court
State vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri on 21 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST-02) , DELHI.
CNR No.DLWT01-00817-2016
Sessions Case No. 58157/2016
Assigned to Sessions on 08.10.2016
FIR No. 219/2016
Police Station Paschim Vihar
Charged Under Section U/S 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act & 174A IPC
Name of accused persons. 1. Narender @ Naresh Khatri S/o Sh.
Jagdish Chand.
Arguments heard on 21.05.2025
Date of Judgment 21.05.2025.
Final Order ACQUITTED.
Appearances: Ld. Subs. Addl. PP for the State
Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, Ld. Counsel for both the
accused.
J U D G M E N T:
PRELUDE :
1. The case is pertaining to the charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 219/2016 u/s 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act PS Paschim Vihar and subsequently vide supplementary chargesheet section 174A IPC was added and the same was received by the present court by way of assignment from the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (West), Delhi vide order on 08.10.2016 after compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C.
PROSECUTION VERSION : Digitally signed
by AMBIKA
AMBIKA SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.05.22
15:57:12
+0530
S.C. No. 58157/2016
FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 1 of 20
PS Paschim Vihar
2. The brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on the complaint of complainant Veena w/o Vijay Kumar, the present case FIR was registered vide complaint dated 27.01.2016, wherein she has levelled allegations that accused Narender @ Naresh Khatri got into a verbal spat with the complainant who was also his land lady to get her premises vacated as her son needed the same since November 2015.
However, the accused aggravating the matter goes to the extent of giving caste based remarks to her stating "Harijan, Chammar, Bhangiyon Ki Bhati Rehne Walo, Main Tumhara Yeh Hal Karunga Ki Tum Mujhe Narender Khatri Ko Jindagi Bhar Nahi Bhuloge" and also gave abuses to her and also he totally ignored giving rent for 10 months. Thereafter, the complainant gave a written complainant to the National Commission of Schedules Caste dated 27.01.2016. Thereafter, the said complaint was forwarded to the DCP concerned for filing of report. Subsequently the present case FIR was registered and the investigation of this case was marked to IO/ACP Suresh Kaushik. Site plan was prepared by the IO, statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded, caste certificate of one Mamta i.e. daughter in law of complainant was seized and got verified from the competent authority. The accused failed to join the investigation even after due notices and issuance of NBWs, proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C was issued and thereafter vide order dated 20.08.2016, the accused was declared absconding. On 14.09.2016, the accused was arrested under 41.1(C) Cr.P.C and supplementary chargesheet qua Section 174 A IPC was filed against the accused on 24.10.2016. Thereafter on 08.10.2016, the final chargesheet was filed for judicial verdict.
S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 2 of 20PS Paschim Vihar THE CHARGE:
3. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused, a prima facie case for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 174A IPC against the accused Narender @ Naresh Khatri was found on 26.04.2018, charges were framed that in the month of November 2015 at unknown time at H. No. A/36D, First Floor, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, accused intentionally insulted or intimated the complainant with intent to humiliate her being a member of Schedules Caste or Scheduled Tribe within public view and committed offence as above and secondly that accused Narender @ Naresh Khatri being the accused failed to appear at the specified place and time as required by a proclamation issued u/s 82 (1) of the Cr.P.C and declared to be absconding vide order dated 20.08.2016 and committed offence u/s 174A IPC. Thereafter, charge was framed accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the case was proceeded for recording of prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. In order to prove its charge, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to prove its case.
i. PW-1 ASI Jagdish deposed that on 26.04.2016, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Paschim Vihar from 4:00 PM to 12 mid night. At about 06:30 PM, ACP Suresh Kaushik gave him tehrir on the basis of which he got registered the present FIR through Computer S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 3 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar Operator by feeding the contents in the computer. The computer generated copy of the FIR No. 219/16 u/s 3 SC/ST Act that was Ex.PW-1/A. After registration of FIR, he made endorsement on the rukka which was Ex.PW-1/B bearing his signatures at Point A. Thereafter, he handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to ACP Suresh Kaushik for investigation.
ii. PW-2 Beena has deposed that in the year 2013, she had given her house at A-1/136, Paschim Vihar, Delhi on rent to the accused. In the year 2015, she asked the accused to vacate the said premises as her children were expected to come and reside. Accused did not vacate the house despite her request. She kept on requesting accused to vacate the house but accused did not listen whenever she used to ask to vacate the house, accused used to insult her by using caste based remarks. Accused used to abused her by uttering words "Bhangi, Chuda, Chamar, Dhobi". Accused did not vacate her house by saying that "Do whatever you do, but I will not vacate the house". Accused used to say that" Nikal Ke Dekho tumara Kya Hal Karta Hu". Accused also used to abuse her daughter-in-law namely Mamta. Accused used to abuse Mamta by using aforesaid caste name whenever she used to go to Accused to ask to vacate the house. She became tired of due to the said conduct of Accused only then she had to lodge a complaint against Accused. Accused had not paid rent for 10 months and also did not pay the electricity bill. Due to non- payment of electricity bill the electricity connection was cut off and then Accused used to consume electricity by theft. Her complaint is Ex.PW-2/A bearing her signatures at Point A. Accused was present in S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 4 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar the court that day and was correctly identified. She belonged to Dhobi caste. However, she did not produce the caste certificate during investigation or during court proceedings. iii. PW-3 SI Bhawani Shankar deposed that on 17.09.2016, he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar. On that day, he joined the investigation with IO of the present case Sh. H.P.Singh the then ACP Rajouri Garden. He along with IO reached Tis Hazari Court where Accused was produced from JC. Accused was arrested and interrogated by IO outside the Court room after obtaining permission from the Ld. MM and thereafter, he was arrested by the IO vide Ex.PW-3/A which bears his signatures at Point A. Accused made disclosure statement and the same is Ex.PW-3/B which bears his signatures at Point A. Thereafter, Accused was sent to JC and Accused was present in the court and was correctly identified.
iv. PW-4 Ms. Mamta deposed that she was residing at A-1/36C, Paschim Vihar, Delhi with her husband and her family. She was a housewife. She had rented first floor of her house to accused who was present in the court that day and correctly identified, in the month of November 2013, at the monthly rent of Rs. 8,500/- per month. When she asked accused to vacate the house in the year 2015, accused refused to vacate the house and started abusing her mother-in-law Beena by passing cantiest remarks by extorting remarks "Bhangi, Choora and Chamar". At that time, she, her mother-in-law and some pubic persons of the locality were present when accused was passing the said castiest remarks to her mother-in- law. Accused was also threatening by extorting words "himaat hai to S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 5 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar khali kara kar dekh lo, main khali ni karoonga". Her mother-in-law belonged to Dhobi Caste which is notified as Scheduled Caste. IO recorded her statement in that case on 26.04.2016 which she recollect from her statement at the time of refreshing her memory. At the time of giving the house on rent to accused a rent agreement was also executed between the accused and her father-in-law who was then expired. She handed over the photocopy of the said rent agreement to the IO. The said copy was seized by the IO from her vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A. That day, he has brought the original rent agreement, the photocopy of same is Ex.PW-B (OSR) which bears the signature of my father-in-law at Point A. Since her father- in-law has expired, however, she was identifying his signatures at Point A mentioned above on the rent agreement as she had seen him signing and writing during the course of their household matters. v. PW-5 Sushila Devi deposed that she was house wife. She belonged to general category. She knew one Meena Devi and her daughter in law who were residing in her neighbourhood. Accused Narender Khatri present in the court that was correctly identified by the her. Accused was tenant of Smt Veena Devi for a period of about two years, however, exact tenure she did not remember but he was her tenant since year 2015. Accused used to quarrel with Veena Devi and her daughter-in-law regarding the issue of arrears of rent. Accused used to pass casteist remarks to Veena Devi and her daughter in law by calling them Dhobhi and Bhangi in her presence as well as in the presence of other neighbours. On one or the other occasion she had also intervened and requested Accused to vacate S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 6 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar the house and by peace but Accused stated that he would vacate but he would not give in writing as to when he would vacate the house and stated that he would vacate as and when he wishes. During the investigation of that case, the police made inquiries from her and noted down the same as her statement.
vi. PW-6 Praveen Kadian deposed that he had been summoned to produce record regarding issuance of caste certificate of Ms. Mamta D/o Sh. Kailash Chand. He had brought original dispatch register of caste certificate. As per record at Sr. No. 2776 of the said register caste certificate was issued to Ms. Mamta D/o Sh. Kailash chand. Copy of the said register is Ex.PW-6/A (OSR). As per the record abovesaid caste certificate bearing no. DCW/PB/SC/2001/2726 was issued from the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh. The copy of the caste certificate is Ex.PW-6/B. What do vii. PW-7 Smt. Mahinder Kumari that she did not know Beena. She does not remember the date, month and year of the incident. He knew accused present in the court. In the year 2015 and before accused was residing as tenant in a flat of complainant of present case. He did not remember the name of the complainant of the case. Many times quarrel had taken placed between the accused and the complainant on the issue of vacating the flat. She did now know the caste of the complainant and he also did not know the caste of accused. In her presence, Accused had not insulted complainant with her caste based remarks. She did not know the other caste of the case.
viii. PW-8 Sh. Suresh Kaushik deposed that on 26.04.2016, he was S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 7 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar posted as ACP Rajouri Garden and was looking after the work of ACP Punjabi Bagh too. On that day, on his directions of the complainant of Veena that case was registered and was investigated by him. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of Veena, Meena, Sushila and Mrs. Mahendru. He took the caste certificate of Ms. Mamta and got it verified. The alleged Accused was not available and could not be traced and his NBWs were obtained. He filed the primary charge-sheet in that case without arrest of Accused.
ix. HC Sandeep Sehwag deposed that on 14.9.2016, he was posted at PS Alipur as Constable. On that day, he was on duty PO staff. On that day he along with ASI Naresh Rana departure towards Paschim Vihar vide DD no. 8. As the information received by ASI Naresh Rana through secret informer who told that the Accused Narender Khatri who was wanted in FIR NO.219/16 was standing near Mother dairy, BG-6, Paschim Vihar, and if raid is conducted he could be apprehended. On the receipt of information, we went to aforesaid place and apprehended accused Narender Khatri, On interrogation by ASI Nareesh Rana, the apprehended person revealed his name as Narender Khatri. IO prepared the kalanadra u/s 41.1(C) Cr.PC and arrested Accused Narender khari vide Arrest memo Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point A. IO also conducted personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW9/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he along with IO and Accused Narender Khatri went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where Accused got medically examined. Thereafter they came back to PS along with Accused and S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 8 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar Accused was confined to lockup. IO ASI Naresh Rana informed the PS Paschim Vihar regarding arrest of wanted Accused Narender Khatri. Accused Narender Khatri present in the court is correctly identified by the witness.
x. PW-10 SI Naresh Rana deposed that on 14.9.2016 he was posted at PS Alipur as ASL. On that day he was on duty staff. On that day he along with COSOL Post Sandeep Sehwag departured towards Paschim Vihar vide DD no. 8. As he received information through secret informer who told me that Accused Narender Khatri who was wanted in FIR No.219/16 was standing near Mother dairy, BG-6, Paschim Vihar, and if raid is conducted he could be apprehended. On the receipt of information, he along with Ct. Sandeep Sehwag went to aforesaid place and apprehended Accused Narender Khatri, On interrogation, the apprehended person revealed his name as Narender Khatri. He prepared the kalanadra u/s 41.1(C) Cr.PC vide Ex.PW- 10/A and arrested Accused Narender khari vide Arrest memo Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature.
xi. PW-11 Retrd. ACP H.S.P. Singh that on 27.6.2016 he had joined as ACP PS, Rajouri Garden. On that day investigation in the present case was marked to him. Accused was declared PO on 20.8.2016. On 14.9.2016, the staff of PS Alipur arrested Accused Narender Khatri and informed him regarding his arrest. On 17.9.2016, an application was moved in the court of Ld. Link MM Sh.Sushil Kumar. On the information received he formally arrested Accused Narender Khatri vide Arrest memo already Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point B. He recorded the disclosure statement of S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 9 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar Accused Narender Khatri vide Disclosure statement memo already Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point B. He moved an application for getting 14 days JC remand in the court concerned. Thereafter, he seized the rent agreement from the daughter in law.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused, under section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded so as to enable him to personally explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused to which he stated that he been falsely implicated on concocted allegations by the complainant as she wanted to get the house vacated forcefully and he has been wrongly declared proclaimed as he has vacated the rented premises and it was not in his knowledge that any case is registered against him and he has never received any summon and never had the knowledge of warrant of arrest as the house was vacated.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
6. In order to prove his innocence, accused persons have examined themselves as defence evidence u/s 315 Cr.P.C .
I. DW-1 is Sh. Raman Kumar who deposed on oath that:
"I am the neighbour/relative of the accused Narender @ Naresh Khatri and I know the accused since 2010 and I have good relationship with the accused. Accused has taken the premises in question on rent in the year 2013 and I have been visitinng terms with the accused and I had visted several times in the house of the accused. I have never heard any type of quarrel with the accused. When I visited the house's accused, no on ehas S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 10 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar made any complaint to me and accused has misbehaving with the complainant. Accused has left the rental premises in June 2016, later on I came to know that false and fabricated was lodged against the accused and he is innocent. Copy of Aadhar Card is Ex.DW-1/1."
ARGUMENTS
7. Ld Addl. PP for the State has already argued as well as Ld. Subs.
Addl. PP that all the prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution have firmly stood the test of cross examination and have been able to prove the case of prosecution beyond the pale of reasonable doubts. It is further argued that nine public witnesses namely PW-2 Beena, PW-4 Mamta and PW-5 Sushila Devi have supported the case of the prosecution. In view of their categorical deposition, it has come in evidence that the accused had made casteist remarks against the complainant and her daughter-in-law Mamta as the complainant was keen on getting her house vacated and the accused used to abuse them uttering words "Bhangi, Chuda, Chamar, Dhobi" and used to threaten them that he will not vacate her house. It is further argued that it is the admitted fact that both the complainant and accused persons were known to each other and accused was the tenant of the complainant of house no. A/36D, First Floor, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi since 2013 and as such, the accused was in the knowledge that complainant and her daughter-in-law belonged to SC category. Also that the accused was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 20.08.2016 after due process of law and he has failed to appear even after issuance of NBWs and summons. Therefore, all the ingredients for commission of an offence u/s 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act and 174A IPC are clearly made out against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 11 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar has been able to establish its case clearly and categorically and merely because there are some discrepancies in the testimony of PWs does not take away their clear and categorical deposition before the Court and the Court is not required to procure a parroted version of PWs. Hence, the accused be convicted for the offences committed by him.
8. While opposing the Ld. Addl. PP and Subs. Addl. PP, the Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the present case is based on false and frivolous allegations. It is argued that complaint has been got drafted after seeking legal advise and hence, is an after-thought in order to falsely implicate the accused. Also, that the complainant and her daughter-in law Mamta used to give him threats to vacate the property immediately or else they will register false and frivolous case. On the date of incident, the same topic of vacating the premises was arisen and in the due course the complainant threatened the accused to vacate the property and that conflict was converted into SC/ST allegations. Also that on that day no PCR call was made by her or by any of the witness cited by the complainant. In rage the complainant and her daughter in law forcefully disconnected the electricity connection which is against law and hampered the fundamental rights of the accused to live. Lastly, it is submitted that he has been falsely implicated just to be forceful possession of the rented premises where the accused was living.
REASONS AND DECISION :
9. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the file carefully.
10. Accused have been charged with the offence punishable u/s 3 (1)
(x) of the SC ST Act. Therefore, Section 3 (I) (x) of The Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is reproduced S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 12 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar hereunder:
"Whoever, not being a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe in any place within public view."
The basic ingredients for the offence under Clause (X) of Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, revealed through the bare reading of this section are as follows:-
(a) there should be intentional insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a member of SC or ST;
(b) the insult must be with an intent to humiliate the member of the SC or ST. As the intent to humiliate is necessary, it follows that the accused must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to the SC or ST community. This can be inferred even from long association; and
(c) the incident must occur in any place within the public view. There cannot be any dispute that the offence can be committed at any place whether it is private place or a "public View" as long as it is within the "public view". The requirement of "public view" can be satisfied even in a private place, where the public is present.
Also, Section 174-A IPC says that whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both; and if he is declared as a Proclaimed Offender the term of imprisonment may extend to 07 years.
11. Now, I shall scrutinize the testimonies of public witnesses as well defence witnesses in order to ascertain the truth of the case and to see whether prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 13 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar doubt or not.
12. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Beena, PW- 4 Mamta and PW-5 Sushila Devi as public witnesses/main witnesses to the present case.
13. PW-2 Smt. Beena has deposed that in the year 2013, she had given her house at A-1/136, Paschim Vihar, Delhi on rent to Accused. In the year 2015, she asked the accused to vacate the said premises as her children were expected to come and reside. Accused did not vacate the house despite her request. She kept on requesting Accused to vacate the house but Accused did not listen whenever she used to ask to vacate the house, accused used to insult her by using caste name. Accused used to abused her by uttering words "Bhangi, Chuda, Chamar, Dhobi". Accused did not vacate her house by saying that "do whatever you do, but I will not vacate the house". Accused used to say that "Nikal Ke Dekho tumara Kya Hal Karta Hu". Accused also used to abuse her daughter-in-law namely Mamta. Accused used to abuse Mamta by using aforesaid caste name whenever she used to go to accused to ask to vacate the house. She became tired of due to the said conduct of accused only then she had to lodge a complaint against accused. Accused had not paid rent for 10 months and also did not pay the electricity bill. Due to non-payment of electricity bill the electricity connection was cut off and then accused used to consume electricity by theft. Her complaint is Ex.PW-2/A bearing her signatures at Point A. Accused was present in the court that day and was correctly identified. She belonged to Dhobi caste.
In the cross-examination she has stated that she has stated to the police that the accused used caste name Dhobi apart from other castes and she was S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 14 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar confronted with the same. Also, she stated that accused also abused her daughter in law by using caste name, however, the same was not so recorded in the police statement.
14. PW-4 Ms. Mamta deposed that she was residing at A-1/36C, Paschim Vihar, Delhi with her husband and her family. She was a housewife. She had rented first floor of her house to Accused who was present in the court that day and correctly identified, in the month of November 2013, at the monthly rent of Rs. 8,500/- per month. When she asked accused to vacate the house in the year 2015, Accused refused to vacate the house and started abusing her mother-in-law Beena by passing caste based remarks by extorting remarks "Bhangi, Choora and Chamar". At that time, she, her mother-in-law and some pubic persons of the locality were present when Accused was passing the said castiest remarks to her mother-in-law. Accused was also threatening by extorting words "himaat hai to khali kara kar dekh lo, main khali ni karoonga". Her mother-in-law belongs to Dhobi Caste which is notified as Scheduled Caste. IO recorded her statement in that case on 26.04.2016 which she recollect from her statement at the time of refreshing her memory. In the cross-examination, she has also deposed that she do not remember the date, month when the accused used casteist remarks "Bhangi, Choora and Chamar in public view for the first time. She deposed that they have never informed the police regarding any incident committed by the accused before registration of this case and no legal notice was served upon accused to vacate the premises of for demand of rent.
15. PW-5 Sushila Devi deposed that she was house wife. She belonged to General category. She knew one Meena Devi and her S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 15 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar daughter in law who were residing in her neighbourhood. Accused Narender Khatri present in the court that was correctly identified by the her. Accused was tenant of Smt Veena Devi for a period of about two years, however, exact tenure she did not remember but he was her tenant since year 2015. Accused used to quarrel with Veena Devi and her daughter in law regarding the issue of arrears of rent. Accused used to pass casteist remarks to Veena Devi and her daughter in law by calling them Dhobhi and Bhangi in her presence as well as in the presence of other neighbours. In the cross-examination, she stated that she does not remember the date when the FIR was registered and the date when the accused used castiests words against the complainant and the daughter- in-law. She denied the suggestion that the accused never used castiests words to the complainant and her daughter in law or that she had never seen any quarrel between the accused and the complainant or that she had never heard by using accused any castiest words to the complainant and her daughter in law.
16. In the testimony of PW-2 Beena, it can be clearly seen that accused used to abused her by uttering words "Bhangi, Chuda, Chmar, Dhobi. She has also deposed that accused used to say words to his daughter-in-law Mamta. However, she has admitted that she has not stated the same in her initial complaint to police. In view of the settled principle of law, the first fact which the prosecution is required to prove is whether the complainant belonged to the schedule caste or not. In this regard, the testimony of ACP Suresh Kaushik and other public witness is important. ACP Suresh Kaushik has deposed that he has verified the caste certificate of the daughter-in-law Mamta. There is no SC certificate of the complainant on record and even in the testimony of ACP Sh.
S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 16 of 20PS Paschim Vihar Satish Kaushik, it is clearly deposed that the complainant could not produce the SC/ST certificate. Section 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST Act is applicable to the persons belonged to SC and ST Community only. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the very fact that the complainant belonged to SC or ST Community. However, taking the prosecution's case from another angle that it was victim Mamta who was abused with castiest remarks. PW Mamta has filed the SC certificate and the same is on record. However, PW-4 Mamta has not uttered a single line that accused used to abuse her by saying caste based remarks. PW Veena Devi has also admitted that she has not stated to the police tht it was her daughter-in-law which was abused by the accused. PW-4 Mamta has also deposed in her examination in chief that accused used to abuse by saying caste based remarks to her mother in law only. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s 3 (1) (X) SC & ST Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even the testimony of PW Sushila can not come to rescue of the prosecution's case as testimony of PW Sushila is general in nature. No date and time has been mentioned by her. It become more important when another public witness PW-7 Mahendra Kumari has turned hostile. Public view is very important in the caste under SC or ST Act. The prosecution is required to prove is whether the complainant and her daughter-in-law Mamta was intentionally humiliated or insulted by the accused in the public view. I have carefully perused the testimonies of these witnesses. One of the prosecution witness i.e. PW-7 Mahendra Kumari turned hostile and testimony of PW Sushila is general in nature. PW Sushila has not deposed specifically date, time and place. She has not mentioned any specific incident where the castiest remarks have been made. To S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 17 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar secure conviction under SC/ST Act, the incident must have happened in public view and testimony of public witness become very important. However, in our case one of public witness i.e. Mahendra Kumari has turned hostile and testimony of PW Sushila is general in nature. Further, testimony of PW Mamta does not have a single line that it was her who was abused by the accused, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. There are a number of cases in which the Hon'ble Superior Courts have explained as to when it is held that prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts entitling accused to benefit of doubt. The main eye witnesses turning hostile in the court have put shadow of doubt on the story of the prosecution. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190, the court quoted Lord Denning and Lord Du Paraq, J. on the concept of the benefit of reasonable doubt in para which is reproduced below:
30. Lord Denning, J. in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [(1947) 2 All ER 372, 373 H] while examining the degree of proof required in criminal cases stated":
That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course, it is possible but not in the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
18. A very valuable discussion on issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt and entitlement of behalf of doubt to the accused is found in the judgment authored by O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in K. Gopal Reddy v. State of AP (1979) 1 SCC 355, wherein reiterating the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 18 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar benefit of any reasonable doubt, the court placing reliance on the afore noticed enunciation by Lord Denning in Miller (Supra), elaborated the principles thus:
"9 ...To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. A reasonable doubt, it has been remarked, does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other; it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons".
19. In view of the above said discussions, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s 3 (1) (X) SC & ST Act beyond reasonable doubts.
20. Coming now to the offence u/s 174-A IPC, it has been alleged that the accused had absconded during the proceedings and he was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 20.08.2016. With respect to the proceedings u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. carried out against the accused in the year 2016, CW-1 SI Bhawani Shankar has been examined. This witness has executed the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C against the accused Narender @ Naresh Khatri and stated that on 01.07.2016, he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar. On that date, he went to execute the process u/s 82 Cr. PC against the accused Naresh Kumar Khatri S/o Jagdish Chand, R/o A-1/136B, Paschim Vihar, Delhi which was marked to him and the same was executed by him on 01.08.2016. Th accused S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 19 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar was not found at the said address. One lady Mamta was found at the said address who told him that she is residing there with her family. She did not about the whereabouts of the accused. PW-4 Mamta who was found at the address, also stated that accused is not residing at the address. Therefore, it seems that no efforts has been made out to trace out the address of accused who was apparently residing in the same vicinity. For execution of process u/s 82 Cr. PC, it has to be seen that sincere efforts has been made by the prosecution in finding the address of the accused which is missing in the present case. Hence, the prosecution has also failed to prove the offence u/s 174A IPC
21. In view thereof, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, thus, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and accused Narender @ Naresh Khtari stands acquitted for the offence u/s 3 (1) (X) SC & ST Act and 174 A IPC.
22. File be consigned to record room after compliance of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed by AMBIKA AMBIKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.22 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN 15:57:21 +0530 COURT ON THIS 21.05.2025 (AMBIKA SINGH) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST):DELHI 21.05.2025 S.C. No. 58157/2016 FIR No. 219/2016 State Vs Narender @ Naresh Khatri Page 20 of 20 PS Paschim Vihar