Delhi District Court
State vs Krishna Sharma on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST01-0016822015
Session Case No. 7372/16
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. R P Sharma (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma
R/o H. No. 356, Ground Floor
Ashoka Enclave Main, Sector 35
Faridabad, Haryana
2. Mrs. Krishna Sharma
W/o Late Sh. R P Sharma
R/o H. No. 356, Ground Floor
Ashoka Enclave Main, Sector 35
Faridabad, Haryana
FIR No. : 574/2014
Police Station : Hauz Khas
Under Section : 3(x) SC/ST Act
Date of Institution : 04.12.2015
Date of Committal : 02.03.2016
Reserved for Judgment : 03.09.2025
Date of decision : 12.09.2025
Decision : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Factual matrix of the case The vignette of the prosecution story is that on 25.11.2013, a police control room (PCR) call was made by the Digitally signed Pg No. 1 of 28 by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date:
BUDHIRAJ 2025.09.12 17:09:59 +0530 complainant vide daily diary (DD) number 46B regarding quarrel at H. No. 202B/1, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi which was entrusted to Head Constable Rajesh for inquiry. Later on, on the application of complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the Court concerned had issued directions for registration of First Information Report (FIR) on the complaint of the complainant.
2. The complainant in his complaint stated that he was engaged in the business of property dealer and doing his business in the name and style of 'Choudhary Consultancy' at 202-B/1, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi-110049. The said office was availed on rent from the owner Mrs. Krishna Sharma (one of the accused herein), w/o Sh. R P Sharma (proceedings qua the said accused abated vide order dated 18.02.2020) and everything was going on smoothly till 24.11.2013. On 25.11.2013 at about 02pm, accused R P Sharma, his wife Krishna Sharma along with three unknown persons came at the said office cum shop of the complainant and started abusing him with caste related remarks and intimidating him and asked him to vacate the said office cum shop as they came to know that he belonged to the scheduled caste or else they would kill him at the spot. They said that 'hume nahi pata tha ki tu chamar hai tune to hamari property apavittr kar dee'. Accused persons shouted by saying 'tu churda chamar bhangi aur neech hai aur aaj hame pata laga hai ab hum tumhe is dukan main rahne nahi denga'. Accused R P Sharma further shouted by saying 'tu janta hai mujhe main IB say senior officer retired hoon mai tera bahut bura hall kar dunga aur tera pata bhi nahi chalega Digitally signed Pg No. 2 of 28 NAVJEET by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.09.12 17:10:03 +0530 ki tu kahan gayab ho gaya agar tune do din main dukan khali nahi ki tu dekh main tera kya hall karta hoon'.
3. Accused persons uttered the abovesaid words in front of many people who gathered there after hearing the shouting abusive words of them. Complainant got afraid of accused persons and immediately called at 100 number but the accused persons spoke the said words in front of PCR officials as well as investigating officer (IO) who came from police station. Accused persons accepted and admitted in front of IO as well as other persons that they uttered caste related remarks to the complainant. IO after talking with the accused persons personally tackled them in the side and thereafter left all the accused persons and asked the complainant to come and make the complaint in the police station. Complainant gave the written complaint but no action was taken.
4. The present FIR was registered on 26.05.2014 and investigation was handed over to ACP Yashoda Rawat. During the course of investigation, IO/ACP Yashoda Rawat prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. On 21.06.2014, complainant provided a CD containing the video recording of the alleged incident, photocopy of rent agreement and photocopy of his caste certificate to IO/ACP Yashoda Rawat which were taken into police possession through separate seizure memos. Thereafter, statement of eye witnesses namely Abhishek Sharam, Vishal Gupta, Gaya Prasad, Gurmeet, Rattan Singh and Md. Zakir @ Zamirul Islam was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Pg No. 3 of 28 Digitally signed by NAVJEETNAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:10:09 +0530
5. Thereafter, further investigation was entrusted to IO/ACP Nishant Gupta vide order no. 9143-45/SO/DCP/SD/AC- III dated 03.07.2015. After that IO/ACP Nishant Gupta sent the CD to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for obtaining expert opinion on 13.01.2015. IO/ACP Nishant Gupta obtained the verification report of the caste certificate of the complainant from Tehsildar, Defence Colony. Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded. Statement of eye witnesses namely Vishal Gupta and Sunil Kumar was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PCR staff HC Yashpal and enquiry officer HC Rajesh was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 03.04.2015, accused persons namely R P Sharma and his wife Smt. Krishna Sharma were interrogated and briefed about the allegations leveled against them.
6. During the course of further investigation, no evidence was found against the other three persons accompanying the accused persons as per the supplementary statement of the complainant dated 21.09.2014 and statements of other eye witnesses.
7. Both the accused persons were senior citizens and suffering from various diseases, both have their permanent residence, there is no complaint of threat or any influence from the complainant and as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2014 8 SCC 273, both the accused persons were not arrested and served notice under Pg No. 4 of 28 section 41A Cr.P.C.
8. From the allegations of the complainant and statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of eye witnesses, charge- sheet for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) against the accused persons namely R P Sharma and Smt. Krishna Sharma was prepared.
Cognizance, Committal and Charge
9. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. MM-03, South on 04.12.2015, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The charge-sheet was received in the Court of Sessions on 08.03.2016. Vide Order dated 20.09.2017, charge for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act read with section 34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Digitally
signed by
NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12
17:10:13
+0530
Prosecution evidence
10. The framing of charge against the accused persons culminated into prosecution examining seven (07) witnesses which are as under:
A. PW1 was Md. Zamirul Islam @ Md. Zakir who Pg No. 5 of 28 deposed that he did not recollect the date of incident and had been working as a helper in the clinic at 201, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi for almost 22-23 years. He further deposed that on the day of the incident, when he reached the clinic around 02pm-02:30pm, he saw people gathered outside the clinic and complainant who was running a property office nearby was having a quarrel with one uncle and aunty, however, whose name he did not know but he could identify them by faces (accused R P Sharma expired and identity of the accused Krishna Sharma was not disputed during deposition of PW1). He further deposed that both the parties were abusing each other and he heard the words being spoken as 'gunda' and 'chor'. He was cross examined on behalf of the State as PW1 was not disclosing the complete true and correct facts. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given.
B. PW2 Sanjeev Chaudhary is the complainant in the present case who deposed about his complaint and got marked his application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C as Ex.PW2/A, copy of his caste certificate as Ex.PW2/B, seizure memo of copy of his caste certificate as Ex.PW2/C and seizure memo of CD as Ex.PW2/D. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition. This witness did not disclose certain material aspects of the matter and, therefore, Ld. Additional PP for the State asked leading questions to him. He got marked photocopy of his rent agreement as Ex.PW2/E (colly), seizure memo of the same as Ex.PW2/F, transcript of the video clips which was written by his advocate to the police as Ex.PW2/G (colly). He correctly Pg No. 6 of 28 identified 17 photographs as Ex.P1 (colly). He was cross examined on behalf of accused.
C. PW3 is Sh. Abhishek Sharma who deposed that he was running a shop at Yusuf Sarai Market. He did not remember the exact date and month but in the year 2016, complainant who was his friend had telephonicaly called him and told him that ' mere sath gaali galoch ho raha hain' at his office situated at Gautam Nagar. He further deposed that thereafter, he reached at the office of complainant where he saw that one uncle and aunty were present in the office of complainant and they were having some dispute regarding rent. He further deposed that hot talks were going on between the said uncle and aunty and complainant. He further deposed that no casteist remarks were hurled by the said aunty in my presence.
D. PW4 is Sh. Vishal Gupta who deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month and year of the incident, however, the incident took place at about 10 years and on the day of the incident, Sanjeev had called him and told that 'yaha jagda ho raha hain....yaha aaja'. PW4 further deposed that he reached at the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary where he saw that one uncle and aunty were present in the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary and hot talks were going on between them regarding some rent issue. He further deposed that no casteist remarks were hurled by the said aunty in his presence. He could not identify the accused Krishna Sharma during his deposition. He was cross examined on behalf of the State as he resiled from his earlier statement on Pg No. 7 of 28 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:10:21 +0530 some aspects. He was also cross examined on behalf of the accused.
E. PW5 is Sh. Gurmeet Singh Sarna who deposed that he did not remember the exact date of the incident but in the month of November 2013, he was going to his house and when he was crossing Rani Ki Kothi wali gali, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, he heard the noise from the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary and when he entered in his office and saw that Sanjeev was standing in his office on the other side of the table and 3-4 persons were also standing in his office. He further deposed that one old age lady, one old age male and one boy were abusing to Sanjeev Chaudhary by saying 'chuda....chamar'. He further deposed that Sanjeev Chaudhary was obstructing them not to utter casteist remarks to him but they were continuously uttering casteist remarks to him. He further deposed that he pacified them and took the said old lady outside of the house of Sanjeev Chaudhary. He could not identify the accused during his deposition. He resiled from his previous statement on some aspects, turned hostile and cross examined on behalf of the State. He was also cross examined on behalf of the accused.
F. PW6 is Nishant Gupta, Additional DCP Dwarka District, Delhi who deposed about the recording of statement of eye witnesses namely Vishal and Sunil @ Ravi. He also deposed about the recording of statement of HC Rajesh and HC Yashpal. He got the caste certificate of the victim verified from SDM, Defence Colony and sent the CD containing video footage of the Pg No. 8 of 28 incident to FSL. He deposed that he served notice under section 41A Cr.P.C to both the accused persons namely R P Sharma (since deceased) and Krishna Shama (present through VC) and interrogated them. He further deposed that he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given. PW7 is Retired ACP Yashodha Rawat who deposed about various facets of the investigation. He got marked the site plan as Ex.PW7/A. He also deposed about seizure memo of rent agreement, caste certificate and CD as already Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. He also recorded the statement of witnesses namely Abhishek Sharma, Vishal Gupta, Daya Prasad, Ratan Singh and Mohd. Zakir under section 161 Cr.P.C. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
Statement of accused under section 294 Cr.P.C
11. Accused did not oppugn the genuineness of some of the formal documents i.e. FIR bearing number 574/14 as Ex.PA-1, Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PA-2, DD no.46B dated 25.11.2013 as Ex.PA-3, verification of caste certificate report bearing number F.SDM(DC)/Veri/Misc/2014/077 dated 07.01.2015 as Ex.PA-4 and PCR form as Ex.PA-5. Statement of Ld. Counsel Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh on behalf of accused Krishna Sharma under section 294 Cr.P.C. in this regard was recorded on 07.05.2025.
Digitally
signed by
Pg No. 9 of 28 NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12
17:10:25
+0530
Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C
12. Post the closure of the prosecution evidence vide order dated 14.07.2025, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused Krishna Sharma was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C as the said accused could not appear physically before the court due to her indisposed state and medical condition. Her counsel stated under section 313 Cr.P.C that it is a false case and the complainant was her tenant who was not vacating her premises and was not paying the due rent. He further stated that when accused asked him to pay the due rent and to vacate the premises, he had filed the present false case against her. Her counsel chose not to lead evidence in her defence.
Final Submissions
13. Ld. counsel for accused Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh broached the stand of the accused by setting forth that the date of the alleged incident is 25.11.2013 but the complaint in question is dated 17.12.2013 and the FIR was stated to be registered following the filing of the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C which was an afterthought and a concocted version of the complainant. The PCR call pertains to the quarrel only and there is no allegation of caste based remarks. The complaint which the complainant has claimed to have given immediately after the alleged incident has never seen the light of the day. The motive to file the false complaint is clear that the complainant being the tenant in the premises of the accused refused to vacate the same Pg No. 10 of 28 when accused persons went there. Further, Ld. Counsel pointed out that all the independent witnesses have turned hostile except for PW5 Gurmeet Singh who is the planted and interested witness as his name does not figure in the list of persons initially given by the complainant to the police. Lastly, it is argued that though the complainant claimed to be having an audio video footage of the alleged incident but neither did he submit his mobile phone to the police nor the said CD could be run properly before the court. Thus, in the absence of any incriminating circumstance being proved against the accused, accused Krishna Sharma deserves to be acquitted.
14. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Anil Basoya attracted the attention of the court to page number 16 of the charge sheet which mentions about the initial complaint made by the complainant soon after the alleged incident. Further, Ld. Counsel pointed out that though PW5 could not identify the accused but he spoke about the occurrence of the complainant and hurling of casteist remarks by the accused in line with the deposition of complainant PW2. The FSL report proved the CD but for some reason, the CD could not be played, however, transcripts of the same can be read in evidence. Ld. Counsel further emphasized that though, other witnesses have turned hostile but they have confirmed about the incident of altercation between the parties. Ld. Additional Prosecutor for the State also argued the case on these lines.
15. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the Pg No. 11 of 28 record of the case.
Point for determination
16. Whether on 25.11.2013 at about 02pm at 202-B/1, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, accused Krishna Sharma and accused R P Sharma (since deceased, trials stood abated) not being members of schedule caste or schedule tribe community, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally intimidated the complainant who is a member of scheduled caste, insulted and humiliated him by uttering words 'hame nahi pata tha ki tu chamar hain tune toh humari property apavitra kar di' and 'tu chuda, chamar bhanti aur neech hai aur aaj humein pata laga hain ab hum tumhe iss dukan main rehne nahi denge' in public view.
Analysis and Reasons
17. Incipiently, it is observed that the scheduled caste status of the complainant, which is the prime requirement of the prosecution under SC/ST Act, has not been repudiated on behalf of the accused, who in her statement under section 294 Cr.P.C has affirmed the verification of caste certificate report bearing number F.SDM(DC)/Veri/Misc/2014/077 dated 07.01.2015 as Ex.PA-4.
18. Prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused persons, apart from the complainant who has been examined as PW2, got examined other eye witnesses namely Md.
Pg No. 12 of 28Zamirul Islam @ Md. Zakir as PW1, Sh. Abhishek Sharma as PW3, Sh. Vishal Gupta as PW4 and Sh. Gurmeet Singh Sarna as PW5.
19. Complainant/PW2 deposed about the incident by stating at the out set that he belonged to Jatav Chamar caste which falls under scheduled caste community. On 25.11.2013, PW2 along with his two friends, namely, Abhishek Sharma and Vishal Gupta were present at his office situated at 202, B/1, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi near Dr. Jasbir Clinic, New Delhi and it was a rented property. He further deposed that two painters were also present in his office who were doing white-wash inside his office and one office boy was also present in his office, however, he did not remember his name. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 02:00 PM, accused R. P. Sharma (since expired), his wife accused Krishna Sharma, I. C. Sharma and two other persons, whose names he did not know, came inside his above-mentioned office.
19.1. PW2 further deposed that as soon as, all the aforesaid persons entered his office, they started abusing him in filthy language. He switched on the camera of his mobile phone and started making the video of the said incident, thereafter, accused Krishna Sharma uttered casteist remarks by saying that "tu chura hain, chamar hain, bhangi hain, humme pata nahi thha, tune hamari property aapavitra kar di hain, mera jee kar raha hain tera sar fod doon". Accused Krishna picked up a paper weight (turtle ka paper weight jo glass ka thha) and she told PW2 that Pg No. 13 of 28 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:10:32 +0530 "main tera sar fod dungi". He further deposed that when all the aforesaid persons did not stop, he called the police on 100 number and PCR Van reached there. He further deposed that in front of the PCR officials, accused R. P. Sharma and accused Krishna Sharma told him to vacate the premises within two days. He further deposed that accused R. P. Sharma and accused Krishna Sharma were his landlord and they accepted in front of the police officials that they had hurled casteist remarks to him, which fact had also been recorded in his mobile phone.
19.2. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, his family members including his real brother and parents also reached at his above-mentioned office. Some neighbours also came at his office. He further deposed that PCR official called at local police station i.e. PS Hauz Khas and informed them about the incident, thereafter, he went to PS Hauz Khas. He further deposed that above-mentioned persons also went to PS Hauz Khas and at police station, PW2 gave a written complaint in his handwriting, thereafter, he returned to my house.
19.3. PW2 further stated that thereafter, he keep on visiting PS Hauz Khas to know about the status of his complainant, however, police officials did not take any action on his complaint and when police official did not take any action on his complaint, he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/A in the Court and thereafter, on the directions of the Court, the present FIR was got registered.Pg No. 14 of 28
19.4. PW2 further deposed that after registration of FIR, police officials inquired him about the persons present at his office at the time of incident and recorded his statement. With regard to the identification of the accused Krishna Sharma, PW2 saw the accused through video conferencing and correctly identified her.
19.5. In the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the accused, he could not remember as to who got typed the complaint Ex.PW2/A though he affirmed that he did not type it himself. He affirmed the execution of the rent agreement between him and accused Krishna Sharma till 28.02.2013 Ex.PW2/E (colly) and that no rent agreement was executed after the said date. PW2 also affirmed that the premises which he had taken on rent from the accused Krishna Sharma was the lower ground floor. Post this response, PW2 was confronted with the site plan and he was asked whether the site plan was of the premises which he had hired from the accused and upon glancing the same, PW2 responded that site plan was not of the same property which he had hired from the accused. The said site plan was Ex.PW2/DA. PW2 further added that after the alleged incident, he had shown the spot to the police on the same day of the incident but police did not prepare any site plan in his presence.
PW2 could not remember whether he had handed over his mobile phone to the IO in which he had recorded the alleged incident. He dis-affirmed having intentionally not handing over the mobile phone to the IO. PW2 claimed to have converted the video footage from his mobile phone to the CD through computer and Pg No. 15 of 28 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.09.12 17:10:37 +0530 laptop. PW2 further claimed to have not handed over any certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the above mentioned video footage to the IO.
20. With regard to the presence of other witnesses Vishal Gupta and Abhishek Sharma in his office, PW2 could not remember the exact time when they reached in his office on the day of the alleged incident. He could not remember whether he had mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW2/A that accused Krishna Sharma had uttered 'mera jee kar raha hain tera sar fod doon'. PW2 further denied that accused Krishna Sharma did not utter casteist remarks by saying that 'tu chura hain, chamar hain, bhangi hain, humme pata nahi thha, tune hamari property aapavitra kar di hain. He further denied that accused R P Sharma and accused Krishna Sharma had not accepted in front of the police officials that they had hurled casteist remarked to him.
21. Embarking now on the testimony of other eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW1 Md. Zamirul Islam @ Md. Zakir could not recollect the date of the incident though he claimed to have been working as a helper in the clinic at 201, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi for almost 22-23 years. He further deposed that on the day of the incident, when he reached the clinic around 02pm-02:30pm, he saw people gathered outside the clinic and complainant Sanjeev Choudhary, who was running a property office nearby was having a quarrel with one uncle and aunty whose names he did not know but he could identify them by faces, however, accused R P Sharma expired and identity of Pg No. 16 of 28 the accused Krishna Sharma was not disputed during his deposition. He further deposed that both the parties were abusing each other and he heard the words being spoken as 'gunda', 'chor'.
22. Since PW1 was not disclosing the facts as per his earlier statement, he was cross examined on behalf of the State wherein he claimed having not heard the words i.e. chudda, chamar, bhangi, neech spoken by the accused persons. He also claimed having not any knowledge that the parties were landlord and tenant.
23. PW3 Abhishek Sharma was running a shop at Yusuf Sarai Market. He could not remember the exact date and month but deposed that in the year 2016, complainant, who is his friend, had telephonically called him and told him that "mere saath gaali galoch ho raha hain" at his office situated at Gautam Nagar. Thereafter, PW3 reached at the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary where he saw that one uncle and aunty were present in the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary and they were having some dispute regarding rent. He further deposed that hot talks were going on between the said uncle and aunty and complainant. PW3 specifically asserted that no casteist remarks were hurled by the said aunty in his presence. PW3 also could not remember whether police had made inquiries from him in respect of the present case or whether police had recorded his statement or not.
24. On the identification of the accused Krishna Sharma, Pg No. 17 of 28 PW3 saw the accused through video conferencing and stated that she appeared to be the same aunty who was present in the office of complainant Sanjeev Choudhary.
25. Since PW3 had also resiled from his earlier statement, he was cross examined on behalf of the State wherein he claimed having not stated to the police in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW3/A that four persons and one lady reached at the spot and started abusing complainant by saying that 'tu chamar chura hain aur tune hamari property ko ganda kar diya hain' and threatened to kill him. PW3 further claimed having not stated to the police that persons who were present there tried to make them understand but they were hurling the words 'chura chamar' and the said aunty was continuously shouting at complainant. PW3 denied having been won over by the accused and having suppressed the true facts deliberately in order to save the accused. He further denied that accused Krishna had uttered casteist remarks to Sanjeev. He further disclaimed having deposed under pressure in order to save the accused.
26. PW4 could not remember the exact date and month and year of the incident but he exposited that the incident took place at about 10 years ago and on the day of the incident, complainant had called him and told that 'yaha jagda ho raha hain...yaha aaja'. Thereafter, he reached at the office of complainant situated at Gautam Nagar where he saw that one uncle and aunty were present in the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary and the hot talks were going between them regarding some rent Digitally Pg No. 18 of 28 signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:10:44 +0530 issue. PW4 specifically clarified that no casteist remarks were hurled by the said aunty in his presence.
26.1. PW4 also deposed that police had asked his name but he could not remember whether police had made inquiries from him in respect of the present case or not. He could not remember whether police had recorded his statement or not. In regard to the identification of the accused, witness was made to see the accused through video conferencing but he could not identify her.
26.2. Since PW4 also reneged on his earlier statement, he was cross examined on behalf of the State wherein he professed having not stated to the police in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW4/A that on 25.11.2013, at about 02pm, he along with his friend Abhishek Sharma were present in the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary and in the mean while, one old age lady and one male aged about 60 years came to the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary and started abusing to him. PW4 further professed having not stated to the police that two other persons also accompanied with them and thereafter the said old lady and male started abusing to Sanjeev Chaudhary by saying 'chura hai..
chamar hai...neech hai tune hamari property ko apavitra kar diya' and the said old lady was continuously abusing at Sanjeev. PW3 further claimed having not stated to the police that complainant had called to his family members and also made a call at 100 number, accordingly, the parents of Sanjeev reached there. PW4 further claimed having not stated to the police that later on, he Digitally signed Pg No. 19 of 28 by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:10:47 +0530 came to know that the said old persons were the owner of the office of Sanjeev Chaudhary.
26.3. PW4 denied having deliberately not identified the accused Krishna Sharma as she was his neighbor. He further denied having been won over by the accused. He further denied having suppressed the true facts deliberately in order to save the accused. He further denied that accused Krishna had uttered casteist remarks to complainant. He also denied that he was deposing under pressure in order to save the accused.
26.4. In the cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW4 stated that he reached at the office within half an hour after receiving of call of complainant from Kotla Mubarakpur.
27. The last eye witness examined by the prosecution is Gurmeet Singh Sarna as PW5 who also could not remember the exact date of the incident but stated that in the month of November 2013 while he was going to his house i.e. C-133, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi-41 and when he was crossing Rani Ki Kothi wali gali, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, he heard the noise from the office of complainant which was situated there and when he entered in his office and saw that complainant was standing in his office on the other side of the table and 3-4 persons were also standing in his office. He further deposed that one old age lady, one old age male and one boy were abusing to complainant by saying 'chuda....chamar'. He further deposed that complainant was obstructing them not to utter casteist Pg No. 20 of 28 remarks to him but they were continuously uttering casteist remarks to him. He further deposed that he pacified them and thereafter, he took the said old lady outside the house of the complainant. He further deposed that no manhandling (hatha pai) was done between them, police reached there and he went to the office of ACP, Saket where his statement was recorded.
27.1. In regard to the identification of the accused, witness was made to see the accused through video conferencing but he could not identify her. Consequently, PW5 was also cross examined on behalf of the State but he denied having deliberately not identified the accused Krishna Sharma as she was his neighbour.
27.2. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW5 stated that younger brother of the complainant was his class mate. He knew complainant through his younger brother. He further stated that complainant was residing in the same gali where he was residing. He could not tell for how long he knew the complainant. He affirmed having never visited the house of complainant neither did he attend his marriage. He denied that no casteist remarks were passed by the old lady and old male to complainant.
28. Having comprehensively deliberated the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses, it is made out that the projected independent witnesses i.e. PW1, PW3 and PW4, though have posited about occurrenceDigitally of some altercation signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Pg No. 21 of 28 BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:10:54 +0530 between the complainant and the accused, but none of them spoke anything about making of casteist remarks by the accused to the complainant. The requirement of the charge framed against the accused persons under section 3(x) of SC/ST Act is that the criminal intimidation, the insult or humiliation in relation to the caste of the complainant must be done within 'public view'. The term 'public view' has been expounded by the Superior Courts which is essential to be taken note of. For reference, I deem it apposite to allude to the following judgments:
I. Daya Bhatnagar and Ors Vs. State, decided on 17.01.2004, High Court of Delhi "19. The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub-clauses (i) to
(xv) of Section 3(i) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence.
However, Sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view'.
Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the Pg No. 22 of 28 mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned brother Mr. Justice B.A. Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under:
"I accordingly hold that expression within 'public view' occurring in Section 3(i) (x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used."
Digitally Pg No. 23 of 28 signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:10:59 +0530 II. Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 (10) SCC 710 "14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged Pg No. 24 of 28 offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
29. The common thread in the afore-noted judgments is that the public persons who may have heard and viewed the casteist remarks being hurled at the victims must not be the relatives or the friends of the victim, must not be associated with him in any manner and must not be interested in any of the parties.
30. In the light of the foregoing principle, it is to be Pg No. 25 of 28 considered whether the deposition of complainant PW2 against the accused in relation to making of casteist remarks to him i.e. 'tu chura hain, chamar hain, bhangi hain, humme pata nahi tha, tune hamari property aapavitra kar di hain, mera jee kar raha hain tera sar fod doon' is corroborated by PW5 Gurmeet Singh Sarna.
31. In the considered view of this court, the testimony of PW5 Gurmeet Singh Sarna cannot be accorded any weight so as to successfully read the same in favor of the case of the prosecution to be fulfilling the requirement of 'public view' for the reasons indicated infra.
● Complainant PW2 deposed that accused Krishna Sharma uttered casteist remarks by saying 'tu chura hain, chamar hain, bhangi hain, humme pata nahi tha, tune hamari property aapavitra kar di hain, mera jee kar raha hain tera sar fod doon', but PW5 professed that he saw one old aged lady, one old aged male, one boy who were abusing to complainant by saying 'chuda chamar'. PW5 failed to bring on record the complete objectionable caste based remarks made to the complainant. If he had heard those remarks, he ought to have revealed something more than 'chuda chamar' and the context in which it was made. Further, PW5 claimed that these remarks were made by three persons including one old aged lady (assumed to be accused Krishna Sharma) but complainant PW2 only spoke about utterance of casteist remarks by accused Krishna Sharma.
● Complainant PW2 in his testimony did not whisper anything about the presence of PW5 Gurmeet Singh Sarna at the Pg No. 26 of 28 Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ NAVJEET Date:
BUDHIRAJ 2025.09.12 17:11:06 +0530 time of alleged incident. He stated about the presence of his two friends namely Abhishek Sharma and Vishal Gupta, both of whom have failed to toe the line of the complainant during their deposition. Also, complainant in his complaint Ex.PW2/A in paragraph 11 disclosed the names of 10-15 persons who had witnessed the alleged incident but name of PW5 does not figure in the said list. These facts also raise grave doubts on the presence of PW5 at the time of alleged incident.
● From the testimony PW5 Gurmeet Singh, it transpires that he had an association with complainant Sanjeev Choudhary whom he admittedly knew through his younger brother. Thus, the possibility of PW5 Gurmeet Singh Sarna being a planted witness cannot be ruled out.
32. No doubt, as rightly contended by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that it has stood established by the prosecution witnesses that an altercation took place between the complainant and the accused persons on the given date, however, foregoing circumstances would operate against the prosecution as the mandatory requirement of the insult or humiliation of the complainant in relation to his caste being made in 'public view' does not get fulfilled.
33. Other ancillary circumstances that have worked against the prosecution are that the CD containing the alleged incident could not establish any inculpatory circumstance against the accused as out of the three video footages, only one was Digitally signed Pg No. 27 of 28 by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.09.12 17:11:11 +0530 found functional but which does not show any casteist remarks being made by accused Krishna Sharma, the PCR call recorded vide GD no.46B only demonstrates about quarrel without any mention of any casteist remarks, there is no complaint proved on record pertaining to the alleged incident which was stated to be filed by the complainant soon after the alleged incident.
Conclusion
34. The upshot of the foregoing elucidation is that the prosecution has failed to bring home an essential ingredient of the charge under section 3(x) of SC/ST Act i.e. insult or humiliation of the victim by making objectionable casteist remarks in 'public view', the benefit of which should enure to the accused. Consequently, accused Krishna Sharma stands acquitted of the charge under section 3(x) of SC/ST Act and is set at liberty. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by NAVJEET PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
12.09.2025 2025.09.12 17:11:15 +0530 (Navjeet Budhiraja) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi 12.09.2025 Certified that this Judgment contains 28 pages and Digitally signed each page bears my signatures. NAVJEET by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: BUDHIRAJ 2025.09.12 17:11:18 +0530 (Navjeet Budhiraja) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi 12.09.2025 Pg No. 28 of 28