Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Smt. Veena Dass Etc on 24 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE - 2 : WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 353/1/10
FIR No. 143/2001
State Vs 1. Smt. Veena Dass etc
Police Station Tilak Nagar
Under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste /
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
24.01.2013
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused are on bail with counsel.
Ld. Counsel Sh. V K Maheshwari for accused persons namely Veena
Dass and Madhu Shrivastava.
Sh. Rakesh Walia, Adv. for accused P S Madan.
ld. APP submits that offence of such types are increasing day by
day. Ld. APP further submits that accused persons have been convicted
u/s 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and minimum punishment in the case is 6 months.
Ld. APP further submits that probation is barred in the cases of SC/ ST Act.
On these grounds ld. APP submits that convict deserve maximum
punishment.
Contrary to it, ld. Counsel Sh. V K Maheshwari and ld. Counsel
Sh. Rakesh Walia for convict persons submits that convict P S Madan is
suffering with diabetic and ailments of heart disease. He is aged about 65
years old. ld. Counsel for accused Veena Dass submits that she is aged
about 58 years old. She is also suffering with cancer and diabetic disease.
Ld. Counsel for accused Madhu Shrivastava submits that she is suffering
1
with diabetic ailment. She is aged about 56 years old. Ld. Counsel submits
that both these ladies are house wives. They have liabilities of their family
members. Ld. Counsel for accused persons further submits that criminal
antecedents of convict persons are clear. On these grounds ld. counsel for
convict prays for taking lenient view at the time of awarding sentence and
minimum sentence be awarded to them.
I have heard the submissions of ld. counsel for the convict persons
and ld. APP as well. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case and family background of convict persons I am of the view that ends of
justice will be met if convict persons namely Smt. Veena Dass, Smt. Madhu
Shrivastava and P S Madan are sentenced to undergo for the period of 6
months S. I. and fine of Rs.2000/ each for the offence u/s 3 (1) (x) of
Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989.
Accordingly, convict persons namely Smt. Veena
Dass, Smt. Madhu Shrivastava and P S Madan are
sentenced to undergo for the period of 6 months S.I.
and fine of Rs.2000/ each for the offence u/s 3 (1) (x)
of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Fine paid.
Copy of this order and judgment be given to the
convict at free of cost forthwith. Orders accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON THIS 24.01.2013
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ASJ2/ West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
2
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, LD. ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 2 : WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 353/1/10
Assigned to Sessions. 25.09.2006
Arguments heard on 05.01.2013
Date of order. 23.01.2013
FIR No. 143/2001
State Vs 1. Smt. Veena Dass w/o sh. V K
Dass r/o Flat no.3 D, PocketA,
Vikas Puri Extn. Delhi.
2. Smt. Madhu Srivastava w/o Sh.
A K Srivastava r/o Flat no.3, C
Pocket A, Vikaspuri Extn. Delhi.
3. P S Madan r/o r/o Flat no.3B,
Pocket A, Vikas Puri Extn. Delhi.
Accused persons who were 1. Smt. Daya Bhatnagar,
discharged by Hon'ble High Court 2. Smt. Meena Karmakar,
vide order dated 08.05.2002 by
quashing the complaint of Smt. 3. Madhu Sharma,
Meena Kumari and Vide another 4.Smt. Leela Panth,
order dated 14.02.2005.
5.Smt. Chandrani Oberio,
6.Smt. Prabha Mehrotra,
7.Smt. Amarjit Kaur,
8.Smt. Hemlata Madan,
9.Smt. Anita Gupta,
10.Smt. Renu Dhall,
11.Smt. Neena Malhotra,
12.Smt. Dimpy Sharma
Police Station Tilak Nagar
Under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste /
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989.
3
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly facts of the case as per prosecution story are that the complaint was made on 14.03.2001 by Babu Lal (now deceased) resident of 2A, PocketA, Vikas Puri Extension that while he was sitting in Flat no. 1A, along with Rajesh Nagpal, Dr. C P Kohli and two others, at that time three persons, namely Mrs. Daya Bhatnagar, Mr. Prem Shankar Madan and Mrs. Srivastava came there and called him 'churachamar'. On 15.03.2001 two more complaints were made at the police station. One was from Mrs. Meena Kumari wife of Babu Lal, in which she alleged that on 14.03.2001 while she was in her house along with her daughter, some residents of her locality comprising 2530 ladies came in front of her house and started abusive language and used similar insulting words. She named 14 members of that group. They are also purported to have used almost similar words and further starting "come out of the house saying, you are not of our standard" once again using objectionable words by saying that why she was living in that block. Meena Kumari stated that on the basis of caste, she was insulted. It appears that the complaints, including third one that was made by Smt. Veena Dass, was inquired into. Inquiry was being carried on. After registration of the case, the investigation was given to ACP, PS Kushwaha. About 10:3010:45 PM, PW8 SI Kehar Singh along with ACP Kushwaha went at the place of occurrence i.e. Pocket1A, 4 House No.1 &2A, Vikas Puri Extension, where Sh. Babu Lal and his wife met. IO prepared site plan at the instance of Sh. Babu Lal. IO recorded statement of Sh. Babu Lal and his wife u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and other material witnesses. Accordingly, a case for the offences punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 was registered against the accused persons.
2. This case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 25.09.06 for trial as it pertains to the heinous crime committed under sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and exclusively triable by court of Sessions. This Court framed the charge against the accused persons for the offences 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined witnesses such as PW1 Smt. Meena Kumari
- wife of complainant; PW2 Hari Chand Saini - public witness; PW3 Dr. Chander Pal Kohli another public witness; PW4 Rakesh Nagpal
- another public witness; PW5 Ct. Brij Kishore - formal witness; PW6 ASI Kailash Chand - duty officer; PW7 Devraj Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Khurja, UP - he affirmed the caste of Babu Lal as Jatav; 5 PW8 SI Kehar Singh initial inquiry officer/ IO; PW9 Narender Kukreja - hostile witness; PW10 Chander Bhan Singh - Tehsildar, Koil, Aligarh, UP - he verified the caste of Smt. Meena Kumari vide Ex.PW10B; and PW11 P S Kushwah, Addl. DCP, Distt. South Delhi.
4. For the sake of brevity and convenience let the evidence of PW1 Meena Kumari be reproduced verbatim which is as under: "It was 7/ 7.15 p.m. On 14.03.2008 I was present at my home H. no.2A Pocket A Vikas Puri Extension, New Delhi. Mr. Madan accused present in the court today along with Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Dass who are by chance also present in the Court today, who were the member of associating were trying to measure the area in order to built boundary wall, being DDA colony. My one daughter was preparing her MA examination and my other daughter was preparing BA examination and both were present at the home. Mrs. Dass, Mrs. Dhar, Mrs. Sharma and 30 more women came my residence. Prior to it, all of the said persons had gone to H. No.1 which being used as office of architect of of Mr. Nagpal. All of a sudden, they repeated knocked door of my house forcibly by uttering words "Chamari Ghar Se Bahar Nikal and Tere Ko Yahain Nahi Rehne Denge, Ab Tum Logo Ko Bhi Batein Aa Gai Hai". (At this juncture, witness tried to weep however, she has been pacified by ld. Addl. PP for State and she is confortable and she is ready to give statement.
Mr. Madan, Mr. Dass and Mr. Srivastava also present with the said gathering (objected to since the answer came when she was asked whether there was any male member was present and it was treated as a leading question). The said male persons have been uttered any words towards me as door of my house was knocked by the said male members Mr. Dass, Mr. Madan and Mr. Srivastava were standing on one side. Mr. Madan, Mrs. Srivastava andMr. Mrs. Dass are also present in the court today. (witness has correctly identified them). Then my husband Babu Lal reported the matter to the SHO of Police Station Tilak Nagar, again said, the report was lodged with police post Tilak Vihar and then it was referred to Police 6 Station Tilak Nagar. Since I was disturbed and perplexed by the incident my blood pressure shoot up, I had examined myself from CGHS dispensary and on the following day 15.03.2001 I reported the matter in the police Station Tilak nagar under my writing. (witness has been shown manuscript complaint). The complaint is Ex.PW1/A was the complaint lodged by me in the police Station Tilak Nagar, I identify my signature at point S on the complaint Ex.PW1/A. I can identify signature of Babu Lal, since deceased if the same were shown to me. (At this stage, the witness has been shown in the signatures of the deceased on the complaint). Complaint shown to me is in the writing of my husband and it bears my signature and of my husband, the complaint is Ex.PW1/B and his signature is at point Z. My husband had also lodged complaint with other authorities, however, I am not recollecting the name of the authorities. However, I can identify such complaints lodged with the authorities, if the same shown to me.
Reply to Court question : I am 10th pass academically.
The witness is given judicial file by segregating three papers then what are the complaints by her husband or where signature of her husband. The complaint Ex.PW1/C is in the writing of my husband, it bears his signature at point S which I identified; another complaint Ex.PW1/D is also in the writing of my husband and his signature is at point S. Q. Do you want to say more? (objected to) A. I am still not comfortable where I am residing, about 2 years back, my son had purchased a Maruti Swift and Mr. Madan had scratched on the said car because Mr. Madan intends to park their four cars on the place where the car is being parked by my son. (objected to beyond the record). I have also brought OPD Card dated 15.03.2001, reflecting my blood pressure reading, its copy is taken on file and Mrk A (objected to being not part of chargesheet). I do not want to say anything else.
This witness has been crossexamined at length. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human 7 being.
5. PW2 Sh. Hari Chand Saini S/o Sh. R.D. Saini, Age: 75 years, R/o 5A, PocketA, Vikaspuri Extn, Delhi, came before the court and stated that on 14.03.2001 at about 07:00 PM, he was present in the office of Mr. Nagapl situated at 1A, pocket A, Vikaspuri Extn. and other persons namely Mr. Babu lal (now deceased), Narender Kukreja, Dr. C.P. Kohli and Mr. Rakesh Kumar were conducting meeting on the issue to remove iron barbed which was put by Resident Welfare Association officials just in front of flats as a result of which the passage was blocked. This meeting was being organized to get the iron barbed wire removed, to clear the passage. At about 07:15 PM, approximately 12 women of the same society gathered in front of the office of Mr. Nagpal and they all started shouting and they all started thumping the glass door. In the meanwhile, Mrs. Madhu Srivastava and Mrs. Meena Das called Babu Lal by his caste name i.e. Chuda, Chamar Babu lal, Chuda Chamar Babu Lal. Mr. Prem Shankar Madan also arrived there and he also uttered the same words. On seeing that its a matter relating to woman or that they may not break open the glass door, Mr. Nagapal informed the police at 100 number at about 07:30 PM and within 1015 minutes, PCR van came there and got the commotion pacified including getting stopped the caste related 8 words. Local police officials were also called by the PCR officials. After arriving of the local police officials, PCR officials left the spot. Two police officials came from PP Tilak Vihar, who inspected the site. He was also interrogated by the police officials and finally, they were asked to give a written complaint at PP Tilak Vihar. He further stated that Mr. Babu Lal had written one complaint regarding caste related words uttered by the accused persons and they put signatures on the complaint of Mr. Babu Lal and they all along with Mr. Babu Lal went to PP Tilak Vihar and the complaint was given there. Thereafter, they came back to their residence. This witness on seeing the complaint Ex.PW1/B identified his signatures at point B. He correctly identified Mrs. Madhu Srisvastav; Prem Shankar Madan; and Mrs. Gupta. Identity of the accused persons was not disputed by the defence counsel. This witness has been crossexamined at length. During the course of cross examination it has come on record that he is residing at the address mentioned above for the last 2425 years. He admitted that since he was the member of the society as such he was giving subscription of the society. He admitted that his son Sanjay Saini is running his dental clinic in flat no.5A in the aforesaid society. He admitted that there had been a demand of the residents of the PktA to put barbed wire on the front of the society since there was no wall and the animals etc. used to enter inside the residential block of Pkt 9 A. Vol. After putting the wire, no gate was left for ingress and egress. There was another main gate on the other side of the society which used to be used for ingress and egress to the society. He admitted that all the residents of pkt A had contributed all the expenses of the barbed wire. Barbed wiring was installed on 14.03.2001 in the morning and the bushes were installed a day earlier. It is correct that flats of Sh. Babu lal, Narender Kukreja, Dr. C.P.Kohli, Rakesh Nagapl were on the front side facing main road. He admitted that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Nagpal was carrying on the business of architect in 1A. He further stated in crossexamination that at present, there is a wall raised by either by some authority or through welfare fund of the MLA of the area or by MCD. Late Sh. Babu Lal was joint Director with the Ministry of Health.
6. This witness further stated in his crossexamination that on 14th of April each year, on the occasion of birthday of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, people used to collect at the residence of late Sh. Babu Lal. The name of son of late Sh. Babu Lal is called by name Sonu. At present he is in private service. Vol. He is an engineer. He does not know if he or his mother Smt. Meena Kumari is not using his caste/title against his name. Out of the two daughters of late Sh. Babu Lal, one is married and other is living at his house only. He does not know if both daughters are not putting their castes/title against their name. He admitted that late Sh. Babu Lal was resident 10 of his flat much prior to 14.03.2001 and that the executive committee of the society used to celebrate functions like Diwali, Independence day etc in the vicinity of Pkt A. He had never seen family of Sh. Babu Lal, Narender Kukreja, Rakesh Nagpal joining the aforesaid functions. However, his family had been attending and is still attending all the functions conducted by the society. He stated that the caste of Late Sh. Babu Lal is Jatav. Prior to 14.03.2001, he had asked the son of Late Sh. Babu lal about his caste who had disclosed that his family is Jatav family which was asked without any reference. He does not know if other colleagues namely Narender Kukreja, Dr. C.P. Kohli, Sh. Rakesh Kumar had knowledge about the caste of Late Sh. Babu Lal. Late Sh. Babu Lal had his good relations with all the residents of Pkt A society. This witness further stated in his crossexamination and admitted that there would not have been any quarrel on 14.03.2001 if barbed wiring opposite to the ground floor, either would not have been installed or would have been removed by executive committee of welfare association. He has not stated to the police the names of 13 more ladies those who had uttered the words related to castes by alleging that they had entered into the house of Babu Lal. The accused persons had come at the shop of Sh. Rakesh Nagpal at about 07:15 PM. Since the glass door of the office was latched from inside as such the accused persons did not enter into the office of Sh. Rakesh Nagpal. The 11 accused persons and the other ladies folk remained outside the office of Sh. Rakesh Nagapal for about 15 minutes. PCR came at the spot after 10 or 15 minutes of the occurrence. The accused persons were also calling by caste related words in front of the police officials. Local police also arrived after 10 or 15 minutes after arrival of the PCR. Their statements were not recorded by the local police at the spot. They went to the police post at about 08:30 PM. The complaint Ex.PW1/B was prepared by Babu Lal and given to the police post, incharge. In complaint Ex.PW1/B, only the names of Prem Shankar Madan, Madhu Srivastava and Veena Das were given as the accused persons. He admitted that in the complaint Ex.PW1/B only Mrs. Das has been mentioned. The accused persons had not abused any other person and only Mr. Babu Lal had been called names. Initially, Mrs.Das and Mrs. Srivastava called late Sh. Babu Lal by the caste related words and thereafter Mr. Prem Shankar Madan repeated the same. He further stated in cross examination that he know that there was a complaint against the association persons, his name is also appearing at serial no.3, same is Ex.PW1/C but it does not bear his signature. Since late Sh. Babu Lal has been visiting the PS alone, as such he does not know as to what has transpired between 14.03.2001 to 27.03.2001. He denied the suggestion that they all the aforesaid persons caught hold the ladies and committed various acts of outraging the modesty of Mrs. 12 Das, Mrs. Srivastava and Mrs. Anita Gupta. He also denied the suggestion that some of their colleagues in that process even tried to kiss Mrs. Das and as a result of the same all the 3 ladies received bruises. He admitted that the case is also registered against them under section 354 IPC.
7. PW3 Dr. Chander Pal Kohli s/o Sh. Bhagat Ram Kohli, R/o 4A/ Pocket A, Vikaspuri Extn. New Delhi - 18, Age - 68 years old appeared before the court and stated that Mr. Dass, Mrs. Dass, Mrs. Shirvastava, Mr. Batla, Mr. Kastoori Lal and other members of the association got put barbed wire in front of Flat no.1 to 8 and due to this barbed wire the passage got blocked. There was no passage for the vehicle / car. There was a small passage in front of building no.1 and 2 and hardly one bicyclist can pass through that passage. The barbed wire was put on 13.03.2001. He along with H C Saini, Babu Lal, Rakesh Kumar, Rakesh Nagpal and Mr. Kukreja approached the members of the association. In the evening he along with Mr. Harish Chand Saini, Babu Lal, Rakesh Kumar and Kukreja and Mr. Nagpal were present at his house i.e. in front of 3A and 4 A but the association people did not agree to remove the barbed wire. Then they all decided to sit together at some place to arrive at some amicable settlement, i.e. 1 A at 7 p.m. on 14.03.2001. At about 7.15 p.m. about one dozen ladies came there including Mrs. Dass and Mrs. Shrivastava and they started thumping door panes and 13 shouted Babu Lal 'Chura Chamar Chura Chamar' Babu Lal. Mr. Prem Shankar Madan also came there and he also uttered the same word. Thereafter, Mr. Nagpal informed the police at 100 number at about 7.30 p.m. and at about 7.45 p.m. PCR Van came there and PCR officials had talked with and thereafter local police officials from PP Tilak Vihar were also called. They enquired from them and they also had talk with Babu lal and asked him to give the complaint if so he wishes. Thereafter, Mr. Babu Lal prepared a complaint and he signed as a witness on the said complaint. He further stated that he has seen the complaint of Mr. Babu Lal which is Ex.PW1/B bears his sign at pt. C. He correctly identified Mr. Madan, Mrs. Shrivastava and Mrs. Dass. This witness has been crossexamined at length. During the course of crossexamination it has come on record he is qualified medical practitioner, he is MBBS and having post graduation degrees/certificates. He has been residing in his flat since 1991. He admitted that pocketA is a combination of number of multistorey flats which were initially built up by DDA. He admitted that all the flats and even the flats of pocketA where his flat is situated are purely residential flats. There is no commercial market nearby pocketA. There is a commercial market about one furlounge from pocketA. He admitted that Mr. Kukreja was not having his residence in pocket A at the relevant period when the occurrence has taken place. He admitted that Ambedkar Jyanti is 14 being celebrated by other high castes also besides SC and ST castes. He admitted that his wife had filed complaint against the accused persons and other residents of pocketA with the Minority Commission of India/Delhi by making complaint that the accused persons call his wife to be Christian. Since they did not pursue the complaint as such no action was taken against the accused persons and other residents of pocket A. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not uttered the words "Babu Lal Chuda Chamar" as mentioned in Ex.PW/1B.
8. PW4 Sh. Rakesh Nagpal S/o Sh. Mohan Nagpal, R/o H233, Vikaspuri, Delhi appeared in the witness box and stated that he is running office by the name and title Nagpal and Associates at 1A, PocketA, Vikaspuri Extension, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi. Residents Welfare Associations people wanted to make boundary wall in front of his shop. The other people who reside at the ground floor also objected for the same. On 13.03.2001, Residents Welfare Associates planted some trees. Police was informed regarding the same in the evening, they came there and the plants were got removed. This witness further stated that on 14.03.2001 at about 077:15 PM, residents namely Sh. Bablu Lal, Mr. Kukreja, Dr. Kohli, Mr. Saini and Rakesh came at his office to discuss the matter and they all were sitting inside the office. Group of residents welfare including Mrs. Srivastava, Mrs. Dass and Mr. Madan gathered 15 outside the office. After reaching in front of his office, these persons started pushing/putting their hands on the panes/glass of the office. He opened the glass of the office and came out and asked as to why they were doing so and on this all these persons started raising slogan 'Babu Lal Chuda Chamar, Babu Lal Chuda Chamar'. This witness further stated that he requested these persons not to do so, else he would call the police. When these people did not mend their ways, leaving behind no option, he called the police, dialing 100 number. After 1015 minutes, PCR officials came there and they all called local police officials. He stated all the aforesaid facts to the police officials and Mr. Babu Lal gave a complaint to the police officials regarding the occurrence. He correctly identified the accused persons. This witness has been crossexamined at length. I have perused the same. No material contradiction has come on record.
9. PW5 Ct. Brij Kishore came before the court and stated that on 28.03.2001, he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar. On that day, duty officer HC Kailash Chand called him at the PS and he gave copy of FIR and original tehrir for giving the same to ACP P.S. Kushwaha and accordingly, he had given the same to him. This witness has not been crossexamined.
16
10.PW6 ASI Kailash Chand deposed that on 28.03.2001 he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar as duty officer. On that day, at about 09:20 PM, he recorded aforesaid FIR on the basis of tehrir produced by SI Kehar Singh. He brought original FIR register containing the said FIR which is in his hand. He got exhibited the carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW6/A. After recording the FIR, he gave copy of FIR and original tehrir after making endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW6/B, which bears his signature at point A, to Ct. Brij Kishore for giving the same to ACP P.S. Kushwaha. This witness has not been crossexamined.
11.PW7 Sh. Devraj Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Khurja, U.P. appeared before the court and stated that he has seen letter no.12 dt. 23.03.2011, signed by the then Tehsildar Sh. Sukhlal Parsad Verma. As per the contents of this letter, Babu Lal S/o Sh. Nathi Singh belongs to caste Jatav, He identified signatures of Sukhlal Parsad Verma, the then Tehsildar who has signed this letter at point A at Ex.PW7/A, being familiar with as he has seen him writing and signing. This witness has been crossexamined at length. In the crossexamination it has come on record that Ex.PW7/A is written by some Babu, whose name is Virender Singh. He identified signatures of Virender Singh which is at point B. The said Virender Singh is a clerk in at Tehsil Office, Khurja. He does not know as to 17 how Virender Singh has written the contents of Ex.PW7/A. Ex.PW7/A was not recorded by sh. Virender Singh in his presence. Even signatures appearing at point A in Ex.PW7/A was not signed in his presence. He has worked under him for one year and three months approximately. There is a dispatch register maintained in their office of Tehsil which is no. 12 in Ex.PW7/A. He did not bring the said dispatch register. He denied the suggestion that even on the date of issue i.e. 23.03.2011 is a forged and fabricated document. He does not know the facts of the case. Tehsildar, Sh. Suklal Parsad Verma who is signatory of Ex.PW7/A is not retired though he has been transferred from Khurja to Kasi Ram Nagar (Kashganj), U.P. on 26.09.2011. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW7/A is a forged and fabricated document.
12.PW8 SI Kehar Singh initial IO of the case came before the court and stated that on 14.03.2001, he was posted at PP Tilak Vihar as In charge. On that day, one person namely Babu Lal and others gave one complaint at PP Tilak Vihar and later on same was given to him. Inquiry was being carried on, on this complaint. On 21.03.2001, he received another complaint through ACP Office, which was filed by Smt. Meena Kumari, wife of Babu Lal. Inquiry was also conducted. This witness endorsed the same vide endorsement on the complaint dt. 15.03.2001, as Ex.PW8/A. He produced the same before the 18 duty officer and accordingly FIR No.143/01 was registered at PS Tilak Nagar on 28.03.2001. After registration of the case, the investigation was given to ACP, PS Kushwaha. About 10:3010:45 PM, he along with ACP Kushwaha went at the place of occurrence i.e. Pocket1A, House No.1 &2A, Vikas Puri Extension, where Sh. Babu Lal and his wife met and IO prepared site plan at the instance of Sh. Babu Lal. IO recorded statement of Sh. Babu Lal and his wife, including his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has been crossexamined at length. In the crossexamination it has come on record that he recorded the complaint of Sh. Babu Lal in the complaint register maintained at PP. He denied the suggestion that there is no complaint recorded by him in the complaint register. On the basis of the complaint dt 14.03.2001, he made inquiry of the complaint. He had visited the place of occurrence on the same evening. No statement was recorded at the spot. Verbal inquiries were made. HC Surjit had accompanied him. They remained there for about half an hour. No person had given any exact information in respect of the complaint given by Sh. Babu Lal. He had visited the house of Sh. Babu Lal on the same evening. The name of five persons were mentioned in the complaint of Sh. Babu Lal. This witness did not call any of the persons named in Ex.PW1/B. Complaint Ex.PW1/A was received from Smt. Meena Kumari on 21.03.2001 through ACP Office. He had not inquired about the 19 facts of the case mentioned in Ex.PW1/B from any of the adjoining neighbours of Babu Lal. As per the inquiry, the occurrence has taken place in flat no.1A of the society. Flat no.1A was used for commercial purposes. On 15.03.2001 in the morning, he visited the premises. On that day, he made inquiries from Sh. Babu Lal and his wife Meena Kumari. They had emphasized for giving their statements in writing. They had not given any of their statements in writing to him. He made inquiries from all the persons those who are mentioned in Ex.PW1/B. This witness further stated in the crossexamination that the person named at serial no.1,2,3,4,5, were inquired about the facts of the case mentioned in the complaint. On the snap inquiry conducted from the aforesaid five persons, he was convinced that a cognizable offence was committed by the accused persons named in complaint vide Ex.PW1/B. This witness informed the ACP, SHO of PS Tilak Nagar on 14.03.2001 and also on dt. 15.03.2001 that the cognizable offence was prima facie found on the complaint Ex.PW1/B. SHO and ACP of PS Tilak Nagar had authorized him to verify the facts. He further made inquiries of this case upto 28.03.2001. ACP and SHO of PS Tilak Nagar had also joined in making inquiries on the basis of complaint Ex.PW1/B. Statements were not recorded in the presence of SHO and ACP of PS Tilak Nagar. The FIR in the case was registered on 28.03.2001. The place of occurrence as per complaint Ex.PW1/B and another complaint Ex.PW1/A are two different places. He made inquiries 20 from all the persons mentioned in Ex.PW1/A to be the culprits of complaint of Smt. Meena Kumari vide Ex.PW1/A. He has not recorded their statements. Since there is no mention of any of the witness in complaint Ex.PW1/A as such he has not inquired from any of the person of Ex.PW1/A. He admitted that as per inquiry conducted during 14.03.2001 to 28.03.2001, timings of occurrence in both the complaints are almost similar. 13 persons have been named in the FIR on the basis of the complaint Ex.PW1/A. He has not prepared any case diary in respect of inquiry conducted by him during the period 14.03.2001 to 28.03.2001. He came to know that the facts of the both complaints were correct in his inquiry of 14 days. He admitted that outside the flat of Sh. Babu Lal, his simply name was mentioned and his caste was not mentioned. Babu Lal and his wife Meena Kumari had not placed any documents during his inquiry and investigation to show that they belong to SC/ST Community. Only on the basis of statements of Sh. Babu Lal and his wife Meena Kumari, the case was registered against the accused persons. Till date, IO does not know what is the subcaste of the complainant but he knew that they belong to SC category. The complainant had informed him that he belongs to Chamar category.
13.In the crossexamination it has also come on record that he had also received a complaint lodged by Mrs. Veena Dass that the complainant Sh. Babu Lal and the witnesses shown in Ex.PW1/B 21 had tried to outrage the modesty of Smt. Veena Dass. Whatever Veena Dass has mentioned in her complaint was also inquired by him and by his seniors. The facts mentioned in the complaint of Veena Dass was also found to be correct in my inquiry and on that basis, case under section 354 IPC was registered against late Sh. Babu Lal and the witnesses of Ex.PW1/B. He admitted that the complaint of Smt. Veena Dass was of the same timing mentioned in complaint Ex.PW1/B. 4 ladies had confirmed the incident happened with Veena Dass at the house of Babu Lal which was dt. 14.03.2001. He denied the suggestion that the complaint of Sh. Babu Lal was a counterblast claim of the complainant of Veena Dass.
14.PW9 Narender Kukreja have not supported the case of the prosecution. He has been got declared hostile by ld. APP.
15.PW10 Sh. Chander Bhan Singh, Tehsildar, Koil, Aligarh, U.P. came before the court and stated that on 17.03.2011, a letter was received from SI Harvir Singh Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, Delhi, to seek verification regarding caste certificate of Meena Kumari W/o Babu Lal R/o Delhi Darwaja, Pargana Koil, Aligarh, dt. 14.06.1985, MarkX issued by the then Tehsildar/Magistrate. He searched for record but the record was not available in their office as it was destroyed as per routine and the Tehsil has also been changed. He got the caste of 22 Meena Kumari verified again at the address mentioned in the certificate through Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal namely Brijender Pal Singh and Virender Singh respectively who recorded statements of local residents namely Karan Singh and Purshottam Dass and they also verified that Meena Kumari belongs to Jatav community. The photocopy of their statement collectively is Ex.PW10/A and his certificate to this effect is Ex.PW10/B bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Revenue Inspector Brijender Pal Singh is at point B. This witness has been cross examined. I have perused the same. In the crossexamination it has come on record that he did not record statement of Revenue Inspector Brijender Pal Singh separately. Statement of Purshotam Dass and Karan Singh are already Ex.PW10/A and B. He was not having the original of Ex.PW10/A. He admitted that he does not have any personal knowledge about the caste of Meena Kumari.
16.PW11 Sh. P.S. Kuswah, Addl. DCP, Distt. South, Delhi is the material witness in this case. For the sake of brevity and convenience let his statement be reproduced verbatim which is as under : "On 28.03.2001, I was posted as ACP, PS Tilak Nagar. On that day, the investigation of the present case was assigned to me by the order of the then worthy DCP, Distt. West. SI Kehar Singh had already conducted preliminary enquiry, on receipt of two complaints of Sh. Babu Lal and Smt. Meena Kumari. Complaint of SH. Babu Lal, addressed to 23 SHO, PS Tilak Nagar and complaint of Smt. Meena Kumari, addressed to ACP, Tilak Nagar are already Ex.PW1/B and A respectively. I visited the place of occurrence i.e. 1A and 2A, Vikas Puri Extension, Ring Road. I prepared site plan, after making enquiry from Sh. Babu Lal and Smt. Meena Kumari. Site plan is now Ex.PW11/A, which bears my signatures at point A. I recorded statements of witnesses.
On 18.04.2001, it was ordered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court not to arrest accused persons. I obtained the caste certificates of Sh. Babu Lal and Smt. Meena Kumari which are already placed on record, duly attested by me. The same are now Ex.PW11/A and C, which bears my signatures at point A. Later on the caste certificate of Sh. Babu Lal was also got verified from Tehsildar, Khurja, U.P.wherein it was verified by Tehsildar that Babu Lal S/o Sh. Nathi Singh, R/o Hirapur, Nangla, Jagat Paragna and TehsilKhurja, belongs to caste 'Jatav'. Report of Tehsildar, Khurja is already Ex.PW7/A. My forwarding letter is now Ex.PW11/B, which bears my signatures at point A. during the course of investigation conducted by me, I also approached the concerned department i.e. Department of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, regarding verification of caste from the concerned department of Babu Lal where he was employed and vide office letter dt. 29.03.2011, signed by Sh. Rajinder Singh, the then Under Secretary, Govt. of India, a certified copy of first page of service book of Sh. Babu Lal, the then Joint Director, Health and Family Welfare, was forwarded. The letter dt. 29.03.2011 is Ex.PW11/D and the certified copy duly attested by the then Under Secretary is Ex.PW11/E wherein in the column of Caste, it is mentioned that Babu Lal belongs to Scheduled Caste. My forwarding letter is Ex.PW11/F, which bears my signatures at point A. During the course of investigation, I made enquiries from the witnesses, recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed."
This witness has been crossexamined at length. I have perused the same. No contrary evidence of the nature has come on record which may go to the root of this case. I found some minor type of 24 contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being. However, in the crossexamination it has come on record that the witness has gone through the complaint of Smt. Meena Kumari vide Ex.PW1/A and witness admits that there are names of Smt. Madhu Srivastava and Smt. Veena Dass. However, name of Sh. P.S. Madan is not mentioned in the complaint. FIR was recorded on the basis of complaint Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/A. The name of Mrs. Veena Dass and that of smt. Madhu Srivastava and P.S. Madan only had been named in the complaint of Babu Lal in Ex.PW1/B dt. 14.03.2001. Question was put to the witness that there are two complaints vide Ex.PW1/B of Late SH. Babu Lal and Ex.PW1/A of Smt. Meena Kumari, on investigation whether both the complaints were found to be correct or not ? He answered that after investigation, the statements of witnesses pertaining to both the complaints along with the relevant facts had been forwarded through chargesheet to the Hon'ble Court. He stated in crossexamination that most of the people who met him they were divided on two sides i.e. towards the accused and towards the complainant. The bone of contention between both the parties being the boundary wall. This witness admitted that photograph Ex.PW11/D1, D2 and D3 depicts the shop of Mr. Rakesh Nagpal and locality. This witness denied the suggestion that the compliant of Late Sh. Babu Lal and Smt. Meena Kumari was made as a counterblast of Smt. Veena Dass which was recorded under section 25 354 IPC against Late Sh. Babu Lal, Mr. Nagpal and Mr. H. C. Saini and Mr. C.P. Kohli.
17.After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons to which they denied all the allegations made against them with submissions that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They pleaded that on 14.03.2001 at about 6:30 - 7:00 PM, they along with 3040 ladies of the locality had gone to the house of Late Sh. Babu Lal for collecting monthly society dues as Sh. Babu Lal was in arrears of society welfare funds. Sh. Babu Lal, Mr. Saini, Mr. Nagpal, Dr. C.P. Kohli were present in their drawing room and all were taking liquor. Late Sh. Babu Lal was wearing his undergarments. All the persons on seeing the ladies started misbehaving using dirty languages and tried to outrage the modesty of Ms. Veena Dass by tearing his blouse, tried to kiss her and also outraged her modesty by touching her other parts of the body. Ladies raised hue and cry as a result of all the ladies those who were waiting outside the rooms of Sh. Babu Lal and number of neighbourers collected there. All the ladies in order to save their life came running from the drawing room of Sh. Babu Lal and went to their houses. Family members and respectable persons of the 26 locality were informed about the heinous and indecent acts of Sh. Babu Lal and his colleagues. A police complaint was lodged by them on the same day. However, police did not take action in spite of their several efforts made. A complaint was made to the senior police officials and to the local MLAs etc. and with great difficulty police finally registered a case under section 354/34 IPC on 28.03.2001 against Late Sh. Babu Lal, Sh. Hari Chand Saini, Sh. Rakesh Nagpal and Dr. Chander Pal Kohli as all of them had jointly and severely outraged the modesty of Mrs. Veena Dass and other ladies. They are all accused persons in the FIR No. 142/01, PS Tilak Nagar, to their knowledge all of them have been convicted by this Hon'ble court. In order to save their unlawful illegal acts, they have made the allegations initially against 16 ladies and Mr. Madan. However, the Hon'ble High Court in the writ jurisdiction filed by all the ladies have quashed, the present FIR qua 12 ladies vide order of Hon'ble High Court dated 08.05.2002 and 14.02.2005. They had never gone to the shop of Mr. Nagpal. They were not aware about the caste of Late Sh. Babu Lal. Late Sh. Babu Lal and his family members were having very close and social relations and all of them were participating in all social functions, festivals like Diwali, Holi etc. Most of the residents of the locality and even the family members and they had very affectionate relations with the family. The other persons namely Sh. Chander Pal Kohli, Sh. Hari Chand Saini and Sh. Rakesh Nagpal were using their flats for commercial purposes. 27 All the residents of the locality had put plantation/hedge at the boundary of the society with barbed wire also as a result of the same, all of them were facing difficulty in their commercial activities and this was the main cause of the dispute. Later on corporation had built a brick wall in place of barbed wire.
18.The defence raised thus by the accused ladies have been brought on record by Smt. Daya Bhatnagar, a Sr. citizen, who has appeared as DW1 and Smt. Neeta Bhagnagar who has appeared as DW2. I have gone through their testimonies carefully.
19.Arguments were heard at length. During the course of arguments it has been argued and submitted that initially FIR No.143/2001 was lodged by late Sh. Babu Lal and also by Smt. Meena Kumari PW1 at P.S. Tilak Nagar. According to the complaint lodged by Smt. Meena Kumari thereby alleging that on 14.3.2001 at about 7.20 P.M. some women numbering about 25 to 30 came to her residence bearing No.2A, Pocket -A, Vikas Puri Extension, New Delhi 110018 and called her as Meena ChuriChamari in the presence of her daughters. Smt. Meena Kumari had named 13 ladies those who have entered into the flat and are living in the same vicinity. On the same date, another complaint was lodged by Sh. Babu Lal, husband of PW1, Meena Kumari, thereby alleging that on 14.3.2001, he was 28 sitting in the house of his next door neighbour Mr. Nagpal in the House No.1A, called him ChuraChamar. He has named in his complaint, name of the present accused namely Mrs. Veena Dass, Mrs. Srivastava (Madhu Srivastava) and Mr. Prem Shankar Madan(3rd accused facing trial before this Hon'ble Court). Sh. Babu Lal in his complaint also named that Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Dr.C.P. Kohli, Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Mr. N. Kukreja and Mr. H.C. Saini were also sitting in the house of Mr. Nagpal when the accused persons called him churi chamar. Both the aforesaid complaints were lodged at P.S. Tilak Nagar in the counter of the complaint filed by Smt. Veena Dass whereby she had made complaint at the Police Station on 14.3.2001 whereby informing to the police that she along with other ladies folk had gone to the house of Sh. Babu Lal in order to collect monthly subscription of the society and when she entered into the house of Sh. Babu Lal on 14.3.2001 at about 6.30 P.M. she found Shri Babu Lal was in his undergarment with his other friends namely Dr. C.P. Kohli, Sh. Rakesh Nagpal, Sh. H.C. Saini taking liquor and on finding Mrs. Veena Dass, Mrs. Madhu Srivastave, Mrs. Prabha Mehrotra and Mrs. Anita Gupta those who entered the said house of Babu Lal, Sh. Babu Lal and his other friends referred above jointly and severely outraged the modesty of Mrs. Veena Dass, Mrs. Madhu Shrivastava and Mrs. Prabhu Mehrotra and even torned the clothes of Mrs.Veena Dass, gave brushes on her chest and tried to kiss her. All the ladies were shocked by the behaviour 29 and indecent acts of Sh. Babu Lal and his above named friends. All the four ladies came out under the stress and trauma created by Sh. Babu Lal and his friends. All the ladies informed about the acts of Shri Babu Lal and his other friends and all the ladies thereafter dispersed to their houses from the house of Sh. Babu Lal by planning that they will inform their male members and will take legal action against them. The accused ladies and other ladies with their husbands went to the P.S. Tilak Nagar, on 14.3.2001 lodged a complaint against Babu Lal and his friends. However, the police did not record any FIR as it appears that Sh. Babu Lal and his friends had big influence upon the police officials.
20.Ld. counsel further argued and submitted that the accused persons and other residents of the locality kept on visiting the Police station, met number of Sr. Police officials and after their hectic efforts police agreed to register a case against Sh. Babu Lal and his other friends and accordingly, the police has registered a FIR bearing No.144 of 2001, P.S. Tilak Nagar, in which Dr. C.P. Kohli, Sh. Rakesh Nagpal and Sh. H.C. Saini have been shown to be the accused persons u/s 354/34 I.P.C. After registration of the FIR against the accused persons and other ladies those who were initially named in the FIR numbering 13 filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide their Judgment dated 30 14.2.2005 discharged 12 persons except three accused persons.
21.Ld. counsel for accused persons again submitted that the case which was registered against Sh. Babu Lal and his three friends have already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court has held that Late Sh. Babu Lal and his three friends were guilty of offence u/s 509 IPC and by holding them guilty that they have been given benefit of the First Probation Act vide Judgment of the Hon'ble Court dated 5.7.2012. The Hon'ble Court, thus has rightly convicted to the friends of Late Sh. Babu Lal as Babu Lal died in an unfortunate accident after couple of days after lodging the FIR. Even one witness namely Dr. C.P. Kohli has also died during the trial which were against them.
22.Ld. counsel for the accused persons further argued and submitted that the main consideration and defence of the accused persons is mainly on the ground that Sh. Babu Lal and his friends those who were present in the house of Sh. Babu Lal were guilty of outraging the modesty of the accused persons and their other ladies colleagues and the friends on dated 14.3.2001. The presence of the accused ladies and her other friends colleagues of the Society is admitted by PW1 and other witnesses namely PW2 Sh.Hari Chand Saini, PW3, Dr. Chander Pal Kohli, PW4 and Sh. Rakesh Nagpal. One of the important factor in the case is timing of the offence. As 31 per the case against Sh. Babu Lal and his friends those who are witness in the present case is 6.30 P.M. while all the four witnesses including Smt. Meena Kumari have been alleging the times of occurrence to be 7/7.15 P.M. meaning hereby that the timing of 6.30 P.M. Sh. Babu Lal and his friends outraged the modesty of the accused ladies and their other friends is clearly established and in order to come out from their criminal offence of PW1, 2, 3 & 4 and late Sh. Babu Lal cooked a story by alleging that the accused ladies and other ladies folk of the society has called them 'chura chamar'. The present case is cooked only to take shelter on the cost of Sh. Babu Lal. All the witnesses of the present case PW1 to 4 and statement of Sh. Babu Lal no where suggest as to why the accused ladies and other ladies had called Sh. Babu Lal churachamar and also to his wife, it has also come in the evidence and admission of the witnessed that Babu Lal and his family were living very comfortably and they have been on visiting terms to almost all the residents of the society. So mush so, the caste of Sh. Babu Lal was not even known to all the residence of the society and since Sh. Babu Lal and his other family members had never been mentioning their cases and it was only that Babu Lal with the connivance of his friends namely Sh. Hari Chand, Dr. Chander Pal Kohli and Sh. Nagpal created a false complaint to avoid their own sin knowingly well that the accused ladies and other ladies those who have been discharged by the Hon'ble High Court had never known the caste of 32 Sh. Babu Lal and his other colleagues.
23.Ld. counsel for accused persons further submitted that all the witnesses No.1, 2, 3 & 4 had never alleged that the accused ladies and other ladies had initially gone to the house of Sh. Babu Lal and thereafter, they came to the house of Sh. Rakesh Nagpal. The mens rea of all the witnesses is thus selfexplanatory.
24.Ld. counsel for accused persons again argued and submitted that all the witnesses i.e. PW1,2,3 & 4 those who are allegedly eyewitnesses are accused in the case FIR No.144 of 2001 in which the accused Smt. Veena Dass is complainant. The defence raised thus by the accused ladies have been fully supported by Smt. Daya Bhatnagar, a Sr. citizen, who has appeared as DW1 and Smt. Neeta Bhagnagar who has appeared as DW2. Both the witnesses have supported the defence of the accused ladies and they have alleged in their evidence that the accused ladies besides Smt. Prabha Mehrota and Smt. Anita Gupta on dated 14th March 2001 at about 6.30 P.M. had gone to the house of Sh. Babu Lal to realize monthly arrears of the welfare society. They have also supported that Late Sh. Babu Lal, PW2, 3 & 4 those who were present at the house of Sh. Babu Lal were taking liquor and the complainant and Smt. Madhu Srivastava, Smt. Prabha Mehrotra and Smt. Anita Gupta 33 were victims of late Sh. Babu Lal, PW2,3 & 4 as they had outraged the modesty. The prosecution has not crossexamined in this regard. Even one of the witnesses PW9 Sh. Narender Kukreja who is also one of the resident living at House No.A139 who has denied the occurrence as alleged by PW2,3 & 4 and in spite of the cross examination at length, he has not supported the version of the prosecution. PW9 was only witness produced by the prosecution.
25.ld. counsel for the accused persons again submitted that PW11 Sh. P.S. Kushwaha who is I.O. of the case has failed miserably to prove the case of the prosecution, investigation rather he has in most of the cross examination have stated by alleging that he does not remember though he has admitted about the registration of the case against PW2, 3 & 4 and late Sh. Babu Lal. On these grounds ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that a benefit of doubt be given to the accused persons since they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
26.Contrary to it, ld. APP submitted that all the material witness have correctly identified the accused persons who had intentionally insults late Sh. Babu Lal and his wife Smt. Meena Kumari in a place where so many persons were gathered there, meaning thereby that accused person uttered the word 'churachamar' within public view, 34 as supported by PW1 Smt. Meena Kumar; PW2 Hari Chand Saini; PW3 Dr. Chander Pal Kohli; and PW4 Rakesh Nagpal. All the material documents have also been got exhibited by the relevant witnesses. ld. APP further submitted that some minor type of contradictions have come on record which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being. On these grounds ld. APP submitted that accused persons be convicted.
27.Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act hold the key to the sauid controversy and unfolds itself in the following words: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (1) Whoever, nor being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."
28.For an offence, to be under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, it is mandatory that the insult and intimidation should be committed intentionally and secondly this should be with an intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Thirdly, most important ingredient is that it must be in any place within public view. So far the the first two ingredients are concerned, they are corelated with the merits of the matter as to whether the alleged words had been uttered intentionally and / or whether it was done with an intent 35 to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes.
29.So far as the expression "Public view" is concerned, obviously it has been used in its wisdom by the legislature in contradiction to the expression 'private view'. In addition to that, public view can be at a private place and , therefore, it is not necessary that it must be so uttered at a public place. This is apparent from the plain language of provisions of section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.
30.It is well known that the above said Act has been enforced to provide stringent punishment because it agitates the atrocities being caused on people belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is an enactment to weed out atrocities being inflicted on the mind and body of a particular set of persons. The Orissa High Court in Criminal Appeal no. 70 and 84 of 1994 decided on 18 th November, 1999 in the case of Gobinda Das Vs State of Orissa reiterated the same view point. It was held that to attract the provision of section 3 it is necessary that it should be in a place where public could view the incident but with some care and caution was suggested. It was held that trial court should exercise with great care and caution because chances of false implications cannot be ruled out.
31.Identical has been the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High 36 Court in Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of MP 1992. In the cited case there were rival claims on the fishing rights in the tank. The complainant party accosted by the accused persons had divulged their identity. The accused persons called them by the name of their tribes. It was held that in the peculiar facts two ingredients referred to above already by us must be satisfied in.
32.In the case in hand, it has come on record there was a dispute over some boundary wall in the DDA colony. Besides, one of the witnesses PW9 Sh. Narender Kukreja who is also one of the resident living at House No.A139 who has denied the occurrence as alleged by PW2, 3 & 4 and in spite of the crossexamination at length, he has not supported the version of the prosecution. PW9 was only witness produced by the prosecution. Besides, DW1 Smt. Daya Bhatnagar, a Sr. citizen and DW2 Smt. Neeta Bhatnagar. Both the witnesses alleged in their evidence that the accused ladies besides Smt. Prabha Mehrota and Smt. Anita Gupta on dated 14th March 2001 at about 6.30 P.M. had gone to the house of Sh. Babu Lal to realize monthly arrears of the Welfare Society. They have also supported that complainant late Sh. Babu Lal, PW2, 3 & 4 those who were present at the house of Sh. Babu Lal were taking liquor and the complainant and Smt. Madhu Srivastava, Smt. Prabha Mehrotra and Smt. Anita Gupta were victims of late Sh. Babu Lal, 37 PW2, 3 & 4 as they had outraged the modesty. The prosecution has not crossexamined in this regard. Besides, a case against Sh. Babu Lal and his other friends was registered vide FIR bearing No.144 of 2001, P.S. Tilak Nagar, in which Dr. C.P. Kohli, Sh. Rakesh Nagpal and Sh. H.C. Saini have been shown to be the accused persons u/s 354/34 I.P.C. They were convicted u/s 509 IPC. After registration of the FIR against the accused persons and other ladies those who were initially named in the FIR numbering 13 filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide their Judgment dated 14.2.2005 discharged 12 persons except three accused persons.
33.All these pleas taken by the accused persons, do not come to rescue them for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 precisely for the reasons that the above stated incidents indicate that there was some dispute between the parties and public persons were gathered there. Besides, DW1 Daya Bhatanagar was made accused in this case, however, FIR in her respect was quashed. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that DW1/ she is against the complainant and victim.
34.I have given careful consideration and have gone through the depositions of PW1 Meena Kumari, it has categorically come in her 38 deposition that she was addressed by accused persons by saying that "Chamari Ghar Se Bahar Nikal and Tere Ko Yahain Nahi Rehne Denge, Ab Tum Logo Ko Bhi Batein Aa Gai Hai" and this version is corroborated and supported by the witnesses namely PW2 Hari Chand Saini; PW3 Dr. Chander Pal Kohli; and PW4 Rakesh Nagpal. Though these witnesses appear to be interested witnesses yet their depositions cannot be overlooked precisely for the reasons that in the connected case FIR no.144/01 these witnesses have been convicted vide separate judgment passed in case FIR no.144/01. Nothing has come on record that accused persons of present case belong to either SC or ST category. Besides, both the case FIRs i.e. 143/01 and 144/01 pertains to same day, place and contemporary time. This court has also taken note of the fact that FIR of the present case was recorded at the instance of deceased Babu Lal who has expired during the course of trial. However, the wife of deceased Babu Lal has been examined in this case as PW1 who also handed over the complaint to the IO vide Ex.PW1/A. Again it is emphasized that though the deposition of deceased Babu Lal on whose statement case was registered, was indispensable yet the deposition of his wife cannot be overlooked for the purpose of conviction of accused persons as she was also present at the place of incident and she also belongs to SC community vide deposition of PW10 Chander Bhan Singh, Tehsildar, 39 Koil, Aligarh, UP, who deposed that he got the caste of Meena Kumari verified at the address mentioned in the certificate through Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal namely Brijender Pal Singh and Virender Singh respectively who recorded statements of local residents namely Karan Singh and Purshottam Dass and they also verified that Meena Kumari belongs to Jatav community. The photocopy of their statement collectively is Ex.PW10/A and his certificate to this effect is Ex.PW10/B bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Revenue Inspector Brijender Pal Singh is at point B.
35.In 'Corpus Juris Seeumdum, Black's Law Dictionary [6th edition] page 1568 [6th Edition Volume 3] and observed that the expression "public view" does not necessarily mean that large number of persons should be present to constitute Public : and that even when one or two members of the public hear and view the offending words being used, offence would be made out, provided other ingredients of section are satisfied. It was held that: ".......... In other words, it is patent that, therefore, to bring a matter within the scope and ambit of expression "public view" firstly the words must be uttered at a place which is within the public view and it is unnecessary that the number of public persons herein should be more than one. Even if one or two members of the public hear and view, as the case may be, the same and the other ingredients of Section are satisfied, the case would fall within the ambit of said provision."
40
36.So long as the public view in this case is concerned, it has come on record that accused persons had intentionally insulted late Sh. Babu Lal and his wife Smt. Meena Kumari by uttering the words "Chamari Ghar Se Bahar Nikal and Tere Ko Yahain Nahi Rehne Denge, Ab Tum Logo Ko Bhi Batein Aa Gai Hai" in a place where so many persons were gathered there, meaning thereby that accused person uttered the word 'churachamar' within public view, as supported by PW1 Smt. Meena Kumar; PW2 Hari Chand Saini; PW3 Dr. Chander Pal Kohli; and PW4 Rakesh Nagpal. In this regard Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 07.12.2006 held that in 'Sajjan Kumar V. The State & Anorther: 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 689', the point raised by the ld. counsel for petitioner that even as per the FIR the alleged derogatory remarks were made by the petitioner in his office on a one to one basis when nobody else was present and the remarks were not made in public view. Therefore, the provisions of section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be invoked. Therefore, again dispute arises whether uttering derogatory words in the present case falls within the public view or not, the answer is that it falls within public view precisely for the reasons that PW2 Hari Chand Saini; PW3 Dr. Chander Pal Kohli; and PW4 Rakesh Nagpal have affirmed the derogatory words addressed to the victim by the accused persons in their presence. The word 'CHAMAR' does not connote bad sense in toto yet cultural 41 and traditional values determines the scope and extent of the word address. The word 'CHAMAR' in our Indian Society refers to caste hierarchy and linguistically this word refers mental symbol which affects the mental faculties of mind and body. The word in the common use when addressed to a person who belongs to this category feels stirred and chaos and it also causes mental impression not only to the addressee but to the other members of the society by whom such word is heard. However, in the present case uttered words "Chamari Ghar Se Bahar Nikal and Tere Ko Yahain Nahi Rehne Denge, Ab Tum Logo Ko Bhi Batein Aa Gai Hai" to Meena Kumari vide deposition of PW11 P S Kushwah who got exhibited the complaint of Meena Kumari as already Ex.PW1/A and the deposition of PW1 Meena Kumari brings the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. In these facts and circumstances I convict accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 precisely for the reasons that the basic ingredient of "public view" for the offence u/s 3 (1) (x) of the the Act is satisfied in view of the testimonies of material witnesses i.e. PW11 P S Kuswah, Addl. DCP, who got exhibited the complaint dated 14.03.2001 of Smt. Meena Kumari as Ex.PW1/A, PW2 Hari Chand Saini; PW3 Dr. Chander Pal Kohli; and PW4 Rakesh Nagpal and observations made in the Hon'ble High Court order dated 42 08.05.2002 referring ''Corpus Juris Seeumdum, Black's Law Dictionary [6th edition] page 1568 [6th Edition Volume 3].
Accordingly, I convict accused persons namely
1.Smt. Veena Dass, 2.Smt. Madhu Srivastava and 3.P S Madan for the offence punishable u/s 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ASJ2/ West Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON THIS 23.01.2013
43
44
Sessions Case No. 353/1/10
FIR No. 143/2001
State Vs 1. Smt. Veena Dass etc
Police Station Tilak Nagar
Under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste /
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989.
24.01.2013
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused are on bail with counsel.
Ld. Counsel Sh. V K Maheshwari for accused persons namely Veena Dass and Madhu Shrivastava.
Sh. Rakesh Walia, Adv. for accused P S Madan.
Arguments on sentence heard. Vide separate order placed along side in the file, convict persons namely Smt. Veena Dass, Smt. Madhu Shrivastava and P S Madan are sentenced to undergo for the period of 6 months S. I. and fine of Rs.2000/ each for the offence u/s 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict at free of cost forthwith. File be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ2/ West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 45