Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ajit Singh S/O Jai Pal Singh on 15 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Unique ID No.02402R0159462011
SC No.01/2013
FIR No.173/2012
PS Jafrabad
State Vs. 1. Ajit Singh S/o Jai Pal Singh
R/o H. No.125, Ambedkar Basti,
Malyan Mohalla, Vill. Ghonda,
PS Zafrabad, Delhi.
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Ch. Ghan Ram
R/o H. No.125, Ambedkar Basti,
Malyan Mohalla, Vill. Ghonda,
PS Zafrabad, Delhi.
3. Devender Singh @ Devi Bhatti,
S/o Pritam Singh,
R/o H. No.125, Ambedkar Basti,
Malyan Mohalla, Vill. Ghonda,
PS Zafrabad, Delhi.
15.04.2013
:O R D E R:
1.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both the sides in respect of question regarding framing of charge. I have also gone through the entire material placed on record.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.06.2012 on receipt of DD No.15A about scuffle (Jhagra), SI Subhash State Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (SC No.01/2013) Page No.1 of pages 7 Kumar alongwith Ct. Zafruddin went to the spot i.e. H. No.801, Mahliya Mohalla, Village Ghonda and when they reached near corner of the gali, complainant Nihal Singh Meena met them and gave his written complaint, wherein he alleged that he is posted as Junior Engineer in Building Department1 of East Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Shahdara. Today, on 29.06.2012 at about 9.30 AM, on receipt of a complaint regarding unauthorized construction at 801B, Mahilya Mohalla, Village Ghonda, Delhi53 vide Diary No.1848 he after informing the action officer, came to the site for inspection at about 10.15 AM and after inspecting the reported side, he found that construction activity was going on, on two more properties towards the left side of reported property. He after giving his introduction asked the persons present there whether the Site Plan of the buildings, being constructed by them, has been got approved by them from Eastern MCD? On this, out of the persons present there, three persons namely Ajit Singh S/o Jai Pal, Vinod S/o Gyuani and Devi Bhatti started abusing him and used caste related remarks towards him and on his opposing the same, they started beating him by slaps, fists and kicks blows and threatened him not to come again in their gali. He somehow managed to escape away and made a call at 100 number to the effect that the said three persons have caused hindrance in the discharge of his official duties and have beaten him. Complainant showed his willingness to get himself medically examined and accordingly, he was got medically examined from GTB Hospital through Ct. Zafruddin vide MLC No.C2935/12 upon which doctor mentioned injury U/O Blunt. From MLC and complaint, a case U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was got registered by sending Ct. Zafruddin to PS. IO/SI Subhash Kumar inspected the scene of State Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (SC No.01/2013) Page No.2 of pages 7 crime and prepared Site Plan at the instance of complainant. Thereafter, IO tried to trace the accused persons but they were untraceable. IO/SI also tried to find out some witness, but he could not find any witness. IO/SI also took into possession from the complainant, a copy of the complaint given by one Kanwar Singh against Bhanu Pratap regarding unauthorized construction at the aforementioned address, seizure memo of which was also signed by the complainant. Thereafter, the accused Ajit Singh and Vinod Kumar approached the court for grant of anticipatory bail and although the said accused persons were granted interim bail vide order dated 03.07.2012 but in the said order, the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State interalia pointing out that the complainant/victim, who belonged to Schedule Caste also been called tame by his caste, though it has not been elaborated in FIR and may be offence under SC/ST Act will be attracted, was also recorded. Subsequent to that, vide his order no.711114/SOAddl. CP/ North East Distt., dated 03.07.2012, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North East Distrcit, Delhi after adding Sec.3.1(X) and XV of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the instant case bearing FIR No. 173/12 registered U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC PS Jafrabad assigned the further investigation of this case to Sh. Chander Kant, ACP Seelampur. The said ACP conducted the further investigation, during the course of which he prepared the seizure memo which was signed by the complainant Sh. Nihal Singh Meena and took into possession the copy of the complainant. Then the IO examined the complainant and recorded his supplementary statement of complainant U/s 161 Cr.P.C, wherein he reiterated his earlier version of complaint, on the basis of which the case was registered. Statement of State Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (SC No.01/2013) Page No.3 of pages 7 PWs Ct. Zafruddin, Raj Kumar, Raja Ram and Mahender Chaturvedi were also recorded by the IO U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The accused Ajit Singh and Vinod Kumar were arrested on 16.07.2012. Thereafter, the third accused Devender Singh @ Devi Bhatt surrendered before the court of Ld. MM, Karkardooma, Delhi. He was also arrested in this case. Then after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court of concerned Ld. MM (NE), Karkardooma Court, who while making his observation in order dated 19.01.2013 that the instant case interalia involves an offence punishable U/s 3(1)
(x) & (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, which is exclusively triable by the designated special Court of Sessions, committed this court for sessions.
3. As per submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons since the ingredients of Clause (x) & (xv) of Sub Sec.1 of Sec.3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not satisfied in the instant case, so no charge under the said provisions of said Act can be framed against the accused persons, though the charges can be framed under the alleged provisions of Indian Penal Code. Mere calling a person by caste would not attract the provisions of this Act. There must be specific accusation against each of the accused. Since it is a penal provision, so strict interpretation has to be given. In his complaint, the complainant has merely stated that the accused persons had uttered caste related words but what words exactly uttered by them is no where mentioned in the complaint of complainant upon which the FIR was registered. It is paramount important that at least the prosecution must bring home what was really uttered and whether what was really uttered was with the idea State Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (SC No.01/2013) Page No.4 of pages 7 to hurl insult in the name of caste. Thus charge U/s 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out against the accused persons. As regards to Sec. 3(1) (xv) of of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, there is no material at all to attract the said provision as it is not even the case of the prosecution that accused persons had applied any force or caused the complainant to leave his house, village or other place of residence.
Per contra, according to Ld. Addl. PP for the State as there are mentioning of utterance of clear and specific caste related words by the accused persons in the supplementary statement of complainant and other witnesses, so charge can also be framed U/s 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alongwith Sec.186/332/353/34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Sub Clause (x) and (xv) of Sub Sec.(1) of Sec.3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are reproduced as under:
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-(1) Who ever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:
(i). ...............
(ii). ..............
(iii). ..............
(iv). ..............
(v). ...............
(vi). ..............
(vii). ..............
(viii). .............
State Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (SC No.01/2013) Page No.5 of pages 7
(ix). ...............
(x). intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe in any place within public view;
(xi). ..............
(xii). ..............
(xiii). ..............
(xiv). ..............
(xv). forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence,
5. The basic ingredients of the offence under clause (x) of sub Sec.1 of Sec.3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are:
1. there must be an intentional insult or intimidation with intend to humiliate SC & ST member by a non SC & ST member.
2. That insult must have been done in any place within the public view.
It has been held in Mukesh Kumar Saini and Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 94 (2010) DLT 241 that "the use of expression intentional insult or intimidation with intentional to humiliate makes it abundantly clear that the mensrea is an essential ingredients of the offence and it must also be established that the accused had the knowledge that the victim is the SC/ST and that the offence was committed for that reason. Mere calling a person by caste would not attract the provisions of this Act. There must be specific accusation against each of the accused. Further this being a penal State Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (SC No.01/2013) Page No.6 of pages 7 provision has to be given a strict interpretation and if any of the ingredients is found lacking, it would not constitute the offence.
In Hari Dass Vs. State of Maharashtra 1997 CR.L.J 122 it was held that "in the matter of an offence U/s 3(1) (x) SC & ST Act and also U/Sec.509 IPC, where the prosecution rests on certain words uttered by the accused, what exactly those words were would be paramount importance. Those words would suggest as to whether the accused intended to insult the said member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or as the case may be intended to insult the modesty of said member. When we find a serious difference in the versions regarding those words, the prosecution case becomes rather suspicious. It is not as if the words are to be proved verbatim. However, at least the prosecution must bring home what was really uttered and whether what was really uttered was with the idea to hurl insult in the name of caste".
6. In the light of aforesaid, only the charge U/s 186/353/ 332/34 IPC is made out against all the accused persons and the said offences are triable by the Magistrate, so the file be sent back to the Ld. MM concerned, through Ld. CMM (NE), with the directions for proceeding further in the trial after framing the charge U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC against all the accused persons. Accordingly, file be put up before Ld. CMM (NE) on 09.05.2013 at 2.00 p.m. Accused persons are directed to appear there on the said date and time. Ahlmad is directed to send the file, complete in all respect, to the said court immediately.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ASJ02 (NE): KKD Delhi 15.04.2013 State Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (SC No.01/2013) Page No.7 of pages 7