Delhi District Court
Pentaiah vs . State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others ... on 28 January, 2019
In the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge02,
South District, District Court Saket, New Delhi.
Session Case No. 6972/16
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Mahipal Singh Rana
S/o Sh Shankar Pal
R/o H.No. 108, Holi Gate, Etah, UP.
FIR No. : 785/99
Police Station : Kotwali Nagar
Under section. : 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act
Date of assignment : 23.02.2013
Reserved for judgment : 25.01.2019
Date of decision : 28.01.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The FIR in present case is registered on the basis of a complaint dated 29.09.1999 lodged by complainant Niranjan Kumar before the District Magistrate, Etah in which he alleged that on 29.09.1999 at around 2.30pm, one Pratap Singh, Devraj Singh, Rajpal, Rakesh Kumar, Nannu, Bhagwan Singh, Mohar Singh, Mahesh Chander, Raghubir and Seth Chander appeared in the Accounts office, and presented their documents and thereafter, the complainant had made inquiries from them regarding the documents and recorded the statement. During the proceedings Mahipal Singh Rana, SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg1of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 advocate alongwith his Associate entered into the office and told him that he can take the statement of persons as he wished, however he cannot do anything against them, and he will register their 'lekhpatra'. He further threatened him that he will inflict number of bullet injuries on him and further made caste remarks by stating "chamar dhedo ko naukri karna sikha dunga", also abused and threatened him to kill, and this incident was noticed and heard by deed writers, stamp vendors and other villagers. This incident is also witnessed by Kalyan Singh, Sahib Singh (nibandh lipik), Rakesh Kumar, Raheesuddin, Raj Kumar advocate, Rajender Singh, Pradeep Yadav etc. During recording of statements it is also noticed that on hearing the different parties, it was found that lower stamp fees and nibandhan fees was paid deliberately, and the property is not transferable, and the accused Mahipal Singh Rana tried to register those papers in order to cause loss to the government. Furthermore, accused tried to abuse his status as an lawyer and tried to put unnecessary pressure on the persons. This complaint is also sent to SHO Kotwali Nagar pursuant to which an FIR was registered on 30.09.1999 u/s 147/504/506 IPC and sec. 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. During investigation, the site plan of place of occurrence was prepared. The statement of witnesses are recorded, documents seized, and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. The present offence was committed in District Etah, UP however, the said case is transferred to Delhi vide order dated 11.12.2006 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Vide order dated 06.09.2012 the application for discharge of accused was dismissed SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg2of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 and accused is found to have prima facie committed offence u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, consequently vide order dated 22.09.2012 charges u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution for substantiating its case examined 6 witnesses.
Complainant Niranjan Kumar is examined as PW1. PW2 SI Vijay Singh duty officer who registered FIR, PW3 Kalyan Singh, PW4 Sahib Singh, PW5 Rakesh Kumar, PW6 Raheesuddin, officials/clerk eye witnesses working in office of subregistrar. The summary details of the prosecution witnesses are as follows.
4. PW1 Niranjan Kumar stated that in the year 1999 he was posted as Subregistrar at Etah, Tehsil Sadar, UP, and on 29.09.1999 five documents were produced before him for registration. One document pertained to Pratap Singh and Dev Raj and others pertained to Rajpal, Rajesh, Nanu Bhagwan Singh, Mohar Singh Mahesh Chand and Raghubir Singh, Sher Chand Dubey and after interrogation he recorded the statement of the above persons under provisions of Registration Act. In the meanwhile, accused Mahipal Singh Rana alongwith other persons whose name he do not remember entered in the office and stated "tumhe jo pakshkaro ke bayan lene hain le lo aur jo likhna hai likh lo, tum hamara kuch nahi bigad paoge aur hum apne uprukt documents ki registry karwa lenge". The accused also uttered in high voice "dekh mere chehre par jitne chechak ke daag hain, itne tere chehre par goliyon ke daag bana dunga" and also uttered "chamar dhedo ko Etah me naukri karna sikha dunga". The accused further abused him in filthy language and left the office after threatening to kill him. He SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg3of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 also deposed that he belonged to SC category having sub caste Jatav and accused belongs to general caste. At the time of incident his clerical staff Sahib Singh, Kalyan Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Raheesuddin were also present. Many other persons pertaining to documents, deed writers and other persons including advocate Raj Kumar, Rajender Singh and Pradeep Yadav were present. He also stated that during interrogation of concerned persons of aforesaid 5 documents, parties wanted to transfer their respective properties through mortgage with possession, however title and contents of those documents were different. The owners of respective properties belonged to SC communities and they cannot transfer their properties to general category persons without requisite permission from concerned collector and one of the prospective transferee was Dev Raj Singh, son of the accused. Accused wanted to defraud the government by evading revenue and insulted him in presence of his staff. He further stated that due to aforesaid insult he was transferred from there after about one and half months. He also stated that he presented a typed complaint to District Magistrate Etah and on next date FIR was registered, and on 02.10.1999, Ram Babu Singh circle officer recorded his statement. Site plan was prepared. He had not handed over the caste certificate to IO nor he asked the same from him, and the witness also tendered the copies of his caste certificate dated 19.03.1995 and 26.09.2013.
5. In crossexamination stated that it is correct that he had not gone to the PS to report the incident, however denied suggestion that police visited the office on the same day and found the complaint unsubstantiated, therefore he did not report the matter to the police.
SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg4of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 He also denied suggestion that his complaint was declined by District Magistrate and on the basis of the copy he got registered the case . He also stated that he is not aware what action was taken by District Magistrate. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW1/A do not bear his signature. Vol., that copies of complaint were dispatched through official channel. He also denied suggestion that District Magistrate at the instance of station officer visited the office, and also denied suggestion that he ran away from the office and was not available at the purported time of the visit. He further stated that it is correct that at the time of incident he was siting in the cabin /chamber which was used by Nayab's Tehsildar but at relevant time it was alloted to him. He further stated that there is only one room which is used as court room and cabin. He further stated he do not remember whether any site plan was prepared or not. He also stated that it is correct that there was nothing mentioned in his name plate which should have given an idea about his caste. He further stated that on the day of incident, he had registered number of documents except five as found deficiency in stamp duty, and therefore referred those five cases to District Collector. He further stated that he was not aware as to what happened to those five cases. He also stated that endorsement on the five documents mark A 1 to A5 are in his writing, and denied suggestion that he endorsed the above said documents with some ulterior motive mischievously. He also stated it is correct that his caste is not mentioned in his complaint. It is also correct that the caste of Mahipal Singh Rana is also not mentioned in the complaint, however volunteered that he had not mentioned his or SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg5of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 the caste of the accused as it was in his knowledge. He denied suggestion that he had not mentioned that he was not abused in caste words. He further stated that he had not published his caste in any form during his tenure at Etah and also not furnished his caste certificate to IO but stated his caste status to the IO in his statement. He further stated that the executants of the deeds mark A1 to A5 were Jatav by caste and he cannot say whether there was any dispute between principle and the agent qua those documents. He further stated that he cannot comment upon the caste of parties involved in the execution except for the caste of first party who all were Jatavs whereas only inferences is about the caste of second party can be drawn from the sub names mentioned. He also stated that Deputy Collector Sadar did not record his statement in connection with this case nor any statement recorded by District Registrar. He further stated that the incident took place at the time when the proceedings of registration were going on and parties were present before him. He further stated he is aware of Dev Raj son of accused prior to the incident, and also know the accused a prominent figure in District Etah known for creating scenes and committing contempt in various courts. He further stated it is correct that on the day of incident accused suddenly barged into his room alongwith 57 advocates. He further stated that accused Mahipal Singh Rana never came before him prior to the incident in any manner either professionally or personally. He stated that he had never seen the accused Mahipal Singh Rana prior to the incident. However, since he was aware of the caste of the accused therefore did not mention his caste in the complaint. He further SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg6of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 stated that he had not handed over caste certificate of accused as had no reasons or occasion to do so. He also denied suggestion that incident did not take place within public view. He further denied suggestion that false case has been lodged since a complaint of bribery was filed against him. He also cannot say that the first party is in the deeds mark A1 to A5 filed a complaint against him to the District collector as he was demanding bribe. He also denied suggestion that incident did not take place in the manner stated and it was in the form of mild advice not to take bribes from the poor executants. He further stated as per his knowledge 'dhed' is used to address Chamar. He further stated that he cannot bring any documents to show aforesaid meanings but in common parlance it is used alternatively.
6. PW2 SI Vijay Singh stated that on 30.09.1999, he was posted at PS Kotwali and was on duty as duty officer, and at around 3.10 pm received a typed complaint and on the direction of SHO he registered the FIR, and he also recorded the nakal report no. 25. In crossexamination, stated that investigation was assigned to Circle officer, however copy of FIR is not sent to SSP for assignment of registration. He also denied suggestion that he do not have any right to assign the investigation under SC/ST Act.
7. PW3 Kalyan Singh stated that in 1999 he was posted as clerk in the office of Sub Registrar and Raheesuddin, Sahib Singh, Rakesh etc. were also posted as clerk there and Sh Niranjan Kumar was Sub Registrar. On 29.02.1999, at around 2.30 pm, Sh Niranjan Kumar was on duty as Sub Registrar, and 5 documents were placed before him for registry, and on examination found lack of stamp over SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg7of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 them, and directed the parties to do needful and one of the five documents relates to the son of accused who belongs to Thakur community. He further stated that Sh Niranjan Kumar belongs to Jatav community and he himself belongs to Lodha community. He further stated after hearing directions from Nirajan Kumar, accused got aggravated and started abusing and passed the remarks "dhedo, chamaron tumhe naukri karna sikha dunga" in his presence as well as presence of other employees. He also stated 'jaisa chaho waisa bana lo, mai document to register kara hi lunga'. He also stated that 'mere chehre par chechak ke nishan dekh rahe ho, utne hi nishan goliyon ke tere chehre par bana dunga', thereafter accused left the office after threatening. In crossexamination stated no person can identify or recognize the caste by just seeing him. He also stated he do not remember as to in what context accused visited the office as it is an old matter. He further stated that the documents were not registered on that day. He further stated he cannot tell as to he was authorised to make endorsement on the documents qua registry or not. He also stated his statement was recorded by investigating officer and he cannot tell whether he had mentioned about caste of accused in his statement or not. He also stated he do not know whether he had mentioned the caste of the complainant in his statement to the IO or not. He further stated that IO recorded his statement and reduced in writing whatever stated by him. He also stated he do not remember whether he had reached the room of sub registrar after hearing the noise. He further stated that he had not seen the accused and the complainant talking to each other prior to day of the incident ie 29.09.1999. Caste of a SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg8of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 person cannot be ascertained by merely looking at the person, therefore it is not possible to ascertain the caste of subregistrar by entering his room. He also stated name plate of subregistrar Niranjan Kumar was not affixed outside his room/office nor he used to affix the name plate on his dress. He further stated that he had not disclosed to the complainant about the fact that accused belonged to Thakur community. He further stated that he cannot say when and where complainant came to know about the caste of the accused. He cannot say about other officials of his office if they had told about the caste of the complainant. He further stated that he do not remember whether he had shown the place of incident to the IO. He further stated that 5 documents were presented for the registry before the subregistrar simultaneously, and at that time 10 to 8 persons were present in the cabin and rest were in the gallery pertaining to aforesaid 5 documents. The distance between the chamber and office of subregistrar was about 12 to 15 fts. On seeing documents mark A 1 to A5 witness admits that these 5 document were registered in their office on 03.01.2001, and after seeing the certified copy of orders, stated that these documents were seen by him in his office on 30.05.2001 and he had made endorsement on two documents out of 5. He further stated that he is not aware by whom endorsement was made on rest three documents. He also do not know whether subregistrar Niranjan Kumar made endorsement on rest 3 documents or not and they were not endorsed in his presence. He further stated that accused had reached the subregistrar when the documents were produced before him and incident took place for about 1015 minutes and the SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg9of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 endorsement was made on documents after the incident. He further stated that it takes around 5 minutes in recording the endorsement on one document and inquiries from the parties regarding the documents take about 5 to 10 minutes. He denied suggestion that the subregistrar left his cabin immediately after the incident. He also stated that he had not talked to District Registrar about the incident. He also stated he is not aware whether SHO Kotwali and District Registrar stayed in their office between 3 to 4 pm after the incident. He also denied suggestion that he was not present in the office between 3 to 4 pm. He also stated he is not aware if the accused has visited the office of Kanoon go first and then went to the office of subregistrar alongwith Kanoon go Sh Vasudev Singh and asked the subregistrar to register the documents as the same were in order. He however denied suggestion that no incident of altercation or abuses or passing of caste based remarks took place. He however stated it is correct that incident took place due to issue involved qua registration of documents in question. It is also correct that there is no other reason for the incident.
8. PW4 Sahib Singh stated that on 29.09.1999, he was posted as a registration clerk in the office of subregistrar Etah, UP and at around 2.30 pm he heard the noise of quarrel between accused Mahipal Singh Rana and subregistrar Sh Niranjan Kumar and saw that accused was hurling caste based remarks that "hum dhed chamar subregistrar ko sabak sikha denge aur jitne nishan mere chehre par hain utni hi goliyon ke nishan tere chehre par bana dunga", and thereafter also heard bad language and went away. He further stated that lateron he came to know that accused is an SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg10of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 advocate and pressurizing subregistrar for registration of some documents illegally and unauthorizedly. He further stated that there were 56 persons with accused and Rampal and Pratap Singh were also among them. In crossexamination stated that he belongs to Lodhi Rajput caste and seen the accused number of times before the incident. He further stated that accused used to come in office alongwith his clients for registration of documents. He also stated that the subregistrar used to sit on the dias. He further stated that he do not know if the dispute started after rejection of the documents or before their presentation. He also stated that he did not hear any conversation regarding registration of documents between accused and subregistrar, and in his presence accused did not present any document for registration. He also stated that he had not stated about caste of subregistrar to the IO and he also do not have personal knowledge about the caste of subregistrar but heard that he belongs to Jatav caste. He further stated that he do not know the meaning of word Jatav. He also stated it is correct that there is nothing on the board to display the caste of Niranjan Prashad and it is also correct that no one can know about the caste of subregistrar Niranjan Prashad. He further stated no clerk posted in the office of subregistrar can sign on behalf of subregistrar. It is correct that it is only the subregistrar who makes inquiry regarding the validity of the deed. He further stated that he reached the cabin of sub registrar within 56 seconds of hearing the quarrel and had sen the accused abusing the subregistrar.
9. PW5 Rakesh Kumar stated that he was registration clerk in the office of subregistrar Etah and on 29.09.1999 at 2.30 pm, he heard SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg11of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 the noise from the cabin of subregistrar then he immediately reached in his office and saw accused abusing the subregistrar Niranjan Kumar "dhedo chamaron ko Etah me naukri karna sikha denge aur jitne nishan mere chehre par hain utne hi nishan tere chehre par bana dunga". Thereafter he made inquiries from the registrar who informed that accused wanted to get some documents registered in illegal manner and other persons namely Pratap Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Pal, Rakesh, Nanho were with the accused at that time. In crossexamination stated that he belongs to Jatav caste and there is no difference between Jatav and Chamar. He further stated police did not ask him about his caste, however no one can tell the caste of Niranjan Prasad on seeing him, however volunteered that he used to put the portray of Ambedkar in his cabin therefore, he presumed that subregistrar Niranjan belonged to Schedule caste. He further stated that he had not stated to the police that subregistrar Niranjan Prashad belongs to Schedule caste. He also stated that before reaching the office of subregistrar the documents had already been presented and he cannot say whether the documents were refused, however it is correct that by the time he reached the spot, issue regarding the disputed document was over and parties concerned had left the spot. He further denied suggestion that accused reached the office alongwith 56 persons subsequent to the movement of the parties concerned and volunteered that accused Mahipal Singh alongwith 56 persons infact arrived prior to the initiation of proceedings relating to registration of disputed documents. He further stated he cannot say whether it was first document or any other document which was SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg12of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 being considered. He denied suggestion that accused informed the subregistrar that he would make complaint with allegations of demanding bribe to senior officers.
10. PW6 Raheesuddin Nibandhan Lipik (clerk) subregistrar office, Aligarh, UP stated that on 29.09.1999 at around 2.30 pm while he was working as daily paid clerk at the office of subregistrar Etah he heard the noise of abuse and then immediately went to the office of subregistrar and saw that the accused was abusing subregistrar Niranjan Kumar, hurling caste based remarks "churre chamar Etah me naukri karna sikha dunga and jitne mere chehre par nishan hain, utne hi nishan goli ke tere par bana dunga", thereafter accused went away and lateron on formal inquiry found that accused Mahipal intending to get deed registered illegally. He further stated that Niranjan Kumar informed Kotwali police and police came and made inquiries from him. In cross examination,stated he do not know if the dispute between the accused Mahipal and subregistrar Niranjan Kumar was regarding the registration/ nonregistration of document. It is correct that accused was pressurizing for registration of document but Niranjan Kumar refused. He further stated that he had not seen the accused Mahipal in the office except on the day of incident as he used to sit in the staff office room. He further stated he had seen the scene, only the accused was abusing Niranjan Kumar and none else. He denied suggestion he was deposing falsely at the instance of complainant Niranjan Kumar. He further stated that he had not compared the document mark A1 to A5 on that day. He further stated that he knew the accused who was advocate and used to visit SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg13of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 the office of subregistrar even prior to the incident. Accused is also a leading lawyer of District Etah. Accused never visited him in connection of registration of documents. Accused Mahipal belongs to Thakur caste as addressed by people as Thakur Sahib, however he do not have any personal knowledge about the caste of the accused. He further stated it is correct that the subregistrar Niranjan Kumar is Jatav by caste. He further stated he cannot say whether the presenters of document for registration due to which the incident occurred were all Jatavs by caste. He also denied suggestion that subregistrar was abusing the document presenters who belongs to Jatav by caste. He denied suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident.
Material Exhibits
11. Ex.PW1/C is the letter of the Addl. District Magistrate showing complainant is of scheduled caste category. Ex.PW1/D is the scheduled caste certificate. Mark A1 to A5 are the Deeds presented to Registrar office. Ex.PW1/A is the complaint dated 29.09.1999 made by the complainant to the District Magistrate with copy to SHO Kotwali. Mark X is site plan of place of occurrence. Ex.PW2/B is the nakal report No. 25 recorded by SI Vijay Singh at around 3.30pm on 30.09.1999. Ex.PW3/DA is the statement of PW3 Kalyan Singh recorded by IO. Ex.PW3/DB, Ex.PW3/DC, Ex.PW3/DD and Ex.PW3/DE is the copy of court orders ie Asst. Collector Stamps, Etah dated 30.05.2001. Ex.DW2/1 is the Affidavit dated 20.10.1999 of Vasudeo. Ex.DW1/A is the affidavit dated 16.10.1999. Ex.DW3/1 is the certified copy.
SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg14of 36) dated : 28.01.2019
12. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated no FIR was registered at PS Kotwali, however admitted that PW1 Niranjan Singh was posted as Sub Registrar and 5 documents were produced before him for registration but denied suggestion that he had made caste remarks against him or threatened him. He further stated he do not know whether the complainant belong to SC community. He however denied other incriminating circumstances put to him and also raised plea that the investigation was made by circle officer illegally and without jurisdiction. He further stated that complainant to save himself from culpable position filed application to District Magistrate on concocted facts, and reported case against his principal and he had been the agent of all Deed agreements of caste Jatav. He further stated that all PWs are interested witnesses and were subordinates to the complainant.
13. In defence, accused examined DW1 Suresh Shah Sisodia, DW2 Vasudeo and DW3 Ramotar Singh. DW1 Suresh Shah Sisodia stated that on 29.09.1999, he visited the office of Sub Registrar, Etah in connection of getting a deed executed in favour of one Devraj Rana, and on said day he got executed 5 other deeds also, and executant were of Jatav community, and Sh Niranjan Kumar Sub Registrar made objections for registration of Deeds and demanded Rs. 25,000/ per deed as bribe, and also threatened and abused the executants of Deed. Accused Mahipal Singh was called to discuss the matter on law point, however sub registrar was not ready to register the Deed without taking bribe money then accused told that they will move a complaint against sub registrar before ADM, however he had not abused the sub registrar and he came to SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg15of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 know lateron that sub registrar made complaint against all the persons ie executants as well as advocates and agents, and he handed over the affidavit of above facts to the SSP Etah. In cross examination stated that he had not made any complaint against the complainant. Accused also not told him to make complaint against sub registrar.
14. DW2 Vasudeo stated that at the time of incident, he was working as Lekhpal and stated that he presented his Deed for registration in the office of Sub registrar of 5 persons of scheduled caste of village Sheetalpur to have their agency deeds registered, then, he was asked to deposit some cost but he refuted and told them he will not pay any money as bribe, and 5 agency deed holders refused to pay bribe, thereafter all the deeds were presented to sub registrar. Sub registrar demanded money as bribe, thereafter they called Mahipal Singh Rana who asked the sub registrar that he do not have any power to make any remarks on Deeds but he did not make any abusive language or caste remarks. Mahipal Singh Rana told Sub Registrar that he is free to make any remark on Deeds, and he will complaint to registrar and left the office. He told this fact to IO who refused to record his statement. In crossexamination stated that he was not acquainted with 5 agency holders prior to incident. He further stated that he did not depose in his affidavit that if IO did not record his statement, then will lodge complaint against him before SSP.
15. DW3 Ramotar Singh stated that he obtained the Sale deed of Vasudeo and obtained the certified FIR against sub registrar and handed over the copies and the FIR was registered against Niranjan SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg16of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 Singh by Anti corruption branch. He stated that all Deeds in question were prepared by accused and presented before Sub registrar office. Clerks examined the Deeds, and he was present at the time of registration fee, sub registrar objected the registration and stated can only register after payment of Rs. 25,000/. At that time Vasudeo was also present from whom money was demanded. Except 5 deeds, the deed of Vasudeo was also presented. Accused appeared before Sub Registrar but sub registrar flatly refused to register the Deeds then accused told registrar if he will not register the Deeds then he will lodge complaint against him before ADM cum Registrar. In crossexamination denied suggestion that complainant had not demanded any bribe, and he did not make any complaint against sub registrar to ADM or SSP, and came to court alongwith accused.
16. Accused submitted from the evidence of the prosecution, no offence u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act made out. Accused submitted that in FIR there is no mention of caste of complainant as well as the accused. Accused submitted that there must be some previous enmity for the purpose of insulting the complainant. however, it categorically came in the testimony of PW1 that the present accused is not known to him and also not met him prior to incident. Accused submitted that he appeared as an agent as prepared the deeds and requested the complainant to act according to law but he had not acted, however neither threatened nor made any caste remarks against him. It is also submitted that proper procedure is not adopted and there is no compliance of provisions of SC/ST Act while conducting investigation in this case. The appointment of IO SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg17of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 is not legally made by the competent officer according to provisions of Rule 7 of SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that the offence is not committed under public view which is essential ingredient of the offence. Furthermore, the witnesses examined are interested witnesses. Accused submits that defence witnesses categorically proved that complainant demanded bribe and it is a result of this that present case is registered. Accused further relied upon "Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh And Others (2008) 12 SCC 531, Dr. I.V. Rao & Anr. Vs. State of A.P. & Othrs., 2015 Crl. L.J. 652, State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lasxmiprasad Yadav, 2014 CRI L.J. 4103, Kripa Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 (97) ACC 589, Chandra Poojari Vs. State of Karnataka,1998 CRI. L.J 53, V.P. Shetty Vs. Sr. Inspector of Police, Colaba, Mumbai & Anr., 2005 CRI L.J. 3560, Smt. K. Padma Reddy Vs. Station House Officer, Bellampalli & Ors., 2004 CRI L.J. 503 and Thangarasu & Anr. Vs. State, 2010 CRI L.J. 1299". Accused also submitted that the objection raised by the complainant over deeds were set aside and the questioned documents were found in order by the higher authorities. Furthermore, there are cases of anti corruption against the complainant. Accused submitted that the reliance of Supreme court judgment over the contempt committed by him is not at all relevant in this case as it is neither the part of evidence nor put to this accused as incriminating circumstance u/s 313 Cr.P.C, therefore he has not been given any chance to explain the same. Accused submitted that the prosecution not able to prove its case against this accused beyond doubt, hence accused is entitled to be acquitted. Accused also filed written arguments.
SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg18of 36) dated : 28.01.2019
17. Ld. Counsel for complainant not chosen to make any oral arguments but filed written arguments. The main plea in written arguments is that the accused has insulted the complainant PW1 Sub registrar while he was performing his public duty by threatening and causing caste remarks. The caste remarks were made in presence of public witnesses. It is submitted that the complainant made legal objections over the deeds presented as the property belongs to SC community who cannot transfer their property to general category persons without requisite permission from the collector, and accused abused his position as an advocate and wanted to done illegal acts by putting pressure on him. It is also submitted that the abusive language and the caste remarks itself suggest that the accused know that deceased belong to SC community, therefore the plea of accused that the caste of complainant is not withing his knowledge is all farce. It is also submitted that the testimony of PW1 regarding threatening and caste remarks were duly supported through the testimony of PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6. It is also submitted that main plea raised through defence witnesses that sub registrar was demanding the money, however none of the deed holders /executants have been examined to substantiate this plea. Furthermore, DW2 who stated to have heard the said demand of bribery not even stated in his testimony what amount was asked as a bribe. DW3 Ramotar also stated he was present in the office at the time of presentation of Deeds in question but nowhere stated for what purpose he was present there. As per his version, his brother Mahesh was agent of executant Mohar Singh against whom sub registrar made a SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg19of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 complaint for some illegalities, therefore it appears that he has deposed against the complainant in retaliation, but his brother has not been examined. DW2 stated that the registration clerk demanding money thereafter, Sub registrar DW3 quoted certain amount of demand directly from sub registrar, however DW2 not stated the said fact. Furthermore, he has not made any complaint against the complainant before ADM or SSP. The testimony of defence witnesses is not at all inspiring and appears to be planted and tutored witness. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C also not stated that sub registrar was demanding money. It is also submitted that as far as criminal case against complainant is concerned, that was filed by the son of the accused in 2014 that was filed lateron after FIR was registered in the year 2014 to put pressure on accused and the Hon'ble High court has already stayed the said matter. As far as order of the registration of questioned documents passed lateron, the same is under challenge before Hon'ble High court in revision petition. Furthermore, accused has criminal background and made contempt of court in various cases and found guilty for contempt by Hon'ble Supreme court of India also. It is submitted that prosecution able to prove its case beyond doubt and accused is liable to be convicted for offences charged.
18. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the testimony of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 remained unimpeached on the factum of intentional insult, intimidation, humiliation caused by the accused to the complainant by raising caste remarks. Ld. Addl. PP submits that entire incident took place in complete public view. The accused himself suggested PW6 that accused knows that the SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg20of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 complainant is of scheduled caste category. Ld. Addl. PP further submits that the accused is the renowned advocate of the area and everybody knows his caste, therefore his plea that his caste is not mentioned in complaint Ex.PW1/A is of no value. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the defence witnesses on the face of it appears non credible. The main defence of the accused is that complainant demanded bribe, however accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C not alleged anything about the demand of bribe, furthermore none of the witnesses to whom the demand of bribe is made examined. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the defence of the accused is found false, furthermore accused is also found to have been convicted by apex court in contempt court petition in which he misbehaved and assaulted the civil Judge. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the conduct of accused also corroborates that he has no faith or respect for public officials. Ld. Addl. PP submits that prosecution able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused is liable to be convicted.
19. Arguments heard. Record perused.
20. The accused in this case (aged around 88 years) found to be a renowned practising lawyer at District Etah and the complainant Niranjan Kumar is the subregistrar Etah Sadar. The brief background fact is that on 29.09.1999 at around 2.30pm, 5 deeds were presented before PW1 Nirajan Kumar (complainant) for registration. The subregistrar while registering interrogated the concerned parties, however in the meanwhile accused Mahipal Singh Rana advocate alongwith his associates entered in the office and told the complainant that whatever he wants to do he can do SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg21of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 and he will be able to register the documents in question, and further in raised voice threatened him and abused him in caste based words. This act was committed by the accused in presence of public persons and officials of the said office pursuant to which the complainant made a complaint on the same day to the District Magistrate with copy to the station house officer, Kotwali, then FIR was registered and investigation was handed over to the circle officer Ram Babu Singh, who on completion of investigation filed the chargesheet. This court vide order dated 22.09.2012 framed charges u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act to which accused pleaded not guilty.
21. Now the main issue which this court has to examine whether infact the accused has intentionally insulted, humiliated and intimidated the complainant who belongs to SC category. The prosecution for substantiating the allegations of abuses and caste remarks relied upon the testimony of PW1 Niranjan Kumar, PW3 Kalyan Singh, PW4 Sahib Singh, PW5 Rakesh Kumar, PW6 Raheesuddin. PW1 Niranjan Kumar in his examination in chief categorically stated that while he was recording the statements of the persons under the provisions of registration Act, accused Mahipal Singh alongwith other persons came and stated "tumhe jo peshkaron ke bayan lene hain le lo aur jo likhna hai likh lo, tum hamara kuch nahi bigad paoge aur hum apne uprukt documents ki registry karwa lenge". He also uttered in high voice that "dekh mere chehre par jitne chechak ke daag hain itne tere chehre par goliyon ke daag bana doonga"
and also uttered "chamar dhedho ko Etah me naukri karna sikha dunga". His statement is duly corroborated with the complaint Ex.PW1/A made by him on the same day. He further stated in his SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg22of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 examination in chief that on 02.10.1999 circle officer Ram Babu Singh recorded his statement and further tendered the caste certificates showing that he belonged to schedule caste category. He categorically denied suggestions that police on the same day found his complaint unsubstantiated, however stated that he do not know what action is taken by District Magistrate. But there is nothing on record that District Magistrate found the complaint of the complainant unsubstantiated, therefore nothing turns on the fact whether anything was done by District Magistrate or not regarding the present allegations. PW1 testimony is duly corroborated by testimony of PW3 Kalyan Singh, clerk of the said office, PW4 Sahib Singh registration, clerk of the said office, PW5 Rakesh Kumar, registration clerk, PW6 Raheesuddin Nibandhan lipik (clerk) of said office. PW3 categorically stated that accused got aggravated on hearing the directions of Niranjan Kumar and passed remark "dhedho chamaro tumhe naukri karna sikha dunga" in his presence as well as in presence of other employees. He further threatened him that he will make "goliyon ke nishan". There is nothing material in his crossexamination which could suggest that the accused has not abused or threatened the complainant in such manner. PW4 Sahib Singh stated that he heard the accused hurling the accused caste based remarks "hum dhedh chamar subregistrar ko sabak sikha denge aur jitne nishan mere chehre par hain utni hi goliyon ke nishan tere chehre par bana dunga". He also stated he lateron came to know that accused is an advocate and pressurizing the subregistrar for illegal registration of the said documents.
There is nothing material in his crossexamination that accused has SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg23of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 not uttered such words. PW5 Rakesh Kumar another clerk of the office also stated that he saw the accused abusing subregistrar "dhedho chamaro to Etah me naukri karna sikha denge aur jitne nishan mere chehre par hain, utne hisnishan tere chehre par bana dunga". He further stated that on inquiries lateron, he found that accused wanted to get the documents registered in illegal manner. PW6 Raheesuddin Nibandhan lipik also stated while performing the duty he heard the noise of abuse and saw accused abusing sub registrar Niranjan Kumar "chuhde chamar Etah me naukri karna sikha dunga aur jitne chehre par nishan hain utne hi nishan goliyon ke tere chehre par bana dunga". There is nothing in testimony of these witnesses that they were not present in office at the time of incident. Their crossexamination also confirms their presence and able to explain credibly how the incident took place, and even able to tell the presence of other persons at the spot. Therefore, as far as the abuses, threatenings and caste remarks concerned, the statement of PW1 is duly corroborated with the statement of PW3 Kalyan Singh, PW4 Sahib Singh, PW5 Rakesh Kumar and PW6 Raheesuddin. All witnesses are also not of the same caste as of the complainant, therefore it cannot be inferred that perse they are interested witnesses.
22. Accused during arguments raised the plea that they are interested witnesses working under the subregistrar, therefore their statement cannot be taken into consideration. Though those witnesses are found to be working in same office, however nothing surfaced in their crossexamination that because they are under the complainant, they have deposed against the accused. They are SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg24of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 found to be natural witnesses of the spot, explained the incident in the lucid and categorical manner. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the accused that he was not present at the time of incident and only raised the defence in cross of PW1 that he has mildly instructed the subregistrar not to make any objections and had not made any caste remarks or threatening. He nowhere also pleaded that these witnesses were not present at the time of incident.
23. Accused vehemently submitted that the incident alleged to be taken place in the cabin which is a private chamber and the incident at all did not take place in public view. This argument of accused do not appear to be at all convincing as the said incident is witnessed by officials of said office who for the purpose of these allegations do not out of the purview of public view furthermore, the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that accused came with his associates, and at that time the parties whose documents to be registered were also present and that fact was not found to be discredited in their crossexamination. Therefore, prosecution categorically able to prove the the accused made caste based words in public view. The judgments as relied upon by accused are not of any help to him in this regard.
24. Now it is pertinent to see the defence of the accused. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C nowhere specifically raised the plea that the complainant objected to the registration because he demanded bribe from the executants, though it is the case of the accused as per the defence witnesses that the PW1 complainant demanded bribe and because of this refusal the accused is falsely implicated. It is suggested to PW1 in his crossexamination that SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg25of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 incident did not take place and rather it was in the form of mild advice not to demand bribe from the poor executants but PW1 categorically denied this suggestion. It was not even suggested to PW3 and PW4 that any demand of bribe was made by complainant or on his behalf by any other official. PW5 categorically denied the suggestion that accused informed the subregistrar that he will make complaint of demand of bribe to the senior officers. It was not suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses what amount of bribe was demanded. It is also not clear from crossexamination from whom the direct bribe was demanded. It is also not the case of accused that bribe was demanded from him. PW6 Raheesuddin categorically stated that there was no other dispute except regarding registration of documents. He also stated it is correct that accused was pressurizing for registration of documents but subregistrar Niranjan Kumar refused to register the documents. He also categorically stated that at the time of incident he had seen accused abusing the subregistrar. There is nothing suggested to this witness that accused instead of abusing just mildly advising not to take bribe. Therefore, the defence of accused as per the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C as well as the crossexamination of the witnesses that the complainant denied the registration or objected to registration on the ground that there was demand of bribe is not at all found credible.
25. Accused examined DW1 Suresh Shah Sisodia, DW2 Vasudeo, DW3 Ramotar Singh for the purpose that on that day these witnesses were also present in the subregistrar office and witnessed the demand of bribe. DW1 Suresh Sisodia stated that Sh Niranjan SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg26of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 kumar made objections over registration of deeds and demanded Rs. 25,000/ per deed. DW2 Vasudeo stated that he and five agency deed holders refused to pay the bribe. DW3 Ramotar Singh also stated that subregistrar demanded Rs. 25,000/. It is pertinent to notice that these three defence witnesses are not at all concerned with present deed. Neither the executants nor the beneficiaries were examined by accused to substantiate the fact that there was any demand of bribe. DW1 stated Rs. 25,000/ was demanded per deed, DW3 Ramotar Singh only stated that payment of Rs. 25,000/ were demanded, DW2 nowhere stated what amount of money was demanded. DW2 nowhere stated that subregistrar was demanding money instead stated registration clerk was demanding. DW2 not even stated the name of registration clerk. Furthermore, none of the executants made any complaint regarding bribery against the accused. On appreciating the entire evidence, the plea of accused the complainant objected to registration of documents because of demand of bribe do not appear to be at all credible and cannot be relied upon. Merely pendency of any anticorruption case against complainant is of no help to accused to corroborate that any demand of bribery was made on that day.
26. Accused vehemently argued that for making of an offence u/s 3 (1)
(x), the prosecution has to prove that accused know the caste of the complainant at the time of the incident. Accused also submitted that the complainant has to specifically plead in his complaint that appellant was not the member of schedule caste or schedule tribe (relied upon Gorige Pentaiah supra). PW1 complainant in his complaint Ex.PW1/A, nowhere stated that accused knew that he SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg27of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 belongs to schedule caste category or alleged that accused is not the member of SC/ST category. PW1 in his examination in chief nowhere stated that the accused knew his caste when abused, insulted, humiliated and threatened with caste remarks. He categorically stated in crossexamination that he had never seen the accused Mahipal Singh prior to the incident. He also stated that accused never came before him prior to incident in any manner either professionally or personally. PW3 Kalyan Singh in cross examination stated that caste of a person cannot be ascertained merely by looking at the person, therefore, it is not possible to ascertain caste of subregistrar by entering in his room. There is no name plate etc suggested to show that the subregistrar belongs to scheduled caste category. He further stated he cannot tell from where and when the complainant came to know about caste of accused. PW4 Sahib Singh also stated that there is nothing on board to display caste of Niranjan Kumar. He also stated it is correct that no one knew about caste of subregistrar. PW5 Rakesh Kumar stated no one can tell the caste of Niranjan Kumar on seeing him however, he was keeping a portray of Ambedkar in his cabin. PW6 Raheesuddin stated that accused used to visit the said office and belongs to Thakur caste as addressed by people as Thakur Sahib but do not have personal knowledge about his caste.
27. It is categorically came in testimony of PW1 complainant that he neither know nor met accused prior to the incident. None of the other witnesses also stated that accused knows the caste of complainant prior to the incident. Delhi High court in case titled 'Daya Bhatnagar & Ors Vs. State, 2004 SCC Online, Delhi 33" in SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg28of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 para 15 categorically held as under:
"15. Basic ingredients for the offence................ "If the accused does not know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating is a member of SC or ST, an offence under this section would not be constituted. Similarly,if he does not do all this at any place within "public view", the offence would not be made out. Therefore, to attract an offence under Section 3(1)(x), an accused must know that victim belongs to SC/ST caste and he must intentionally insult, intimidate and humiliate him/her at a place within "public view".
The place need not be a public place. It could be even at a private place provided the utterance was made within "public view".
28. Considering the mandate of this judgment, if the accused do not know that the person to whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating, an offence under this section would not be constituted. PW1 neither in the complaint nor in the statement stated that he is known to the accused. Furthermore, there is nothing in the testimony of witnesses that accused at any time prior to said incident appeared before the complainant in any manner. Therefore,the necessary ingredient about the knowledge of accused regarding the scheduled caste status of the complainant at the time of commission of offence is missing. However, Ld. Addl. PP categorically stated that accused in crossexamination of PW6 suggested to him that it is correct that subregistrar is Jatav by SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg29of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 caste. Ld. Addl. PP submits that this suggestion itself suggest that accused has knowledge of caste of Niranjan Singh. Accused submitted that inadvertently instead of 'incorrect', the word 'correct' is found mentioned in this suggestion. However, Ld. Addl. PP objected to this submission that accused had not at any point of time tried to correct the same. It is the principle of appreciation of evidence that evidence has to be appreciated as a whole not in isolated manner. There is a categorical case of accused in cross examination of witnesses that neither he knows the complainant nor complainant knows him. It is the case of the accused that he do not know the caste of accused at the time of incident neither it is stated by the complainant that accused knows his caste, therefore merely from this suggestion when the accused himself is making submission that it is a clerical mistake, it cannot be held that accused know the caste of complainant at the time of commission of the offence.
29. Another pertinent plea raised by complainant in written arguments is that as the accused has levelled the abuses and caste remarks therefore, it can be inferred that the accused knows the caste of the complainant at the time of alleging the caste abuses. As per the mandate of the above judgment, the prosecution must prove that the accused know the caste of the complainant at the time of commission of offence. From the caste words, it cannot be presumed that accused knew the caste of the complainant at the time of commission of offence and as such no such presumption exist in this Act. Thus, from the evidence on record, prosecution not able to prove that the accused knew the caste of the complainant at SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg30of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 the time of incident, though the prosecution able to prove the other ingredient of the offence ie the fact that the offence is committed in public view. Ld. Addl. PP also raised the plea that above judgments cannot be relied upon because those relates for the quashing of the FIR's. This submission do not appear to be tenable because it is categorically mandated by Delhi High court in 'Daya Bhatnagar case (supra)', that if the accused does not know the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating, an offence under this section would not be constituted. It is for the prosecution to prove the that accused knew the complainant, however prosecution failed to prove the said fact. Karnataka High court in case titled 'State of Karnataka V.s Irappa Dhareppa Hoshamani, 2001 Cr.L.J 3566', held in para 1011 held as under:
"1011. In the instance case, although some material is produced to show that PW's 3, 4 and 6 are members of Scheduled caste, from the evidence, it does not disclose that accused I knew about that fact prior to or at the time of incident. In the absence of knowledge on the part of the accused that the victims are members of Scheduled Caste, the question of intention to insult or intimidate the victims as members of the Scheduled Caste does not arise at all. Thus, there has been a total failure on the part of the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act as observed above. Therefore, in my view, the trial court was justified in holding SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg31of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 that the accused is not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act."
30. Therefore, considering the above ratio, it can be held that the prosecution unable to prove all the ingredients required for commission of offence u/s 3(1)(x) Sc/ST Act. Accused also submitted that there is a mandatory requirement of proper procedure to be adopted while conducting the investigation under the present Act. Accused submitted that appointment of investigating officer is not made in accordance to the provisions of Rule 7 of SC/ST Act.
31. Admittedly, in present case the prosecution has not examined the IO Ram Babu Singh circle officer who conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet. This witness could not be examined due to his death. This court vide order dated 21.02.2015 sought verification report over the death of IO with direction that any non compliance in these circumstances would result in the closure of the evidence. Vide order dated 28.05.2016, it is noticed that Inspector Arun Kumar from the PS placed the copy of death certificate. Ld. Addl. PP vide order dated 16.10.2017 requested that as IO Ram Babu Singh expired, SHO and SP City is directed to depute some pairvi officer for assistance of Ld. Addl. PP, however despite directions, no official was deputed. Thereafter vide order dated 13.11.2017 this court observed that despite service no substitute official is sent to depose before the court on behalf of IO and as matter is of old category, no further opportunity was given to prosecution and PE was closed. Prosecution not examined any substitute person to depose on behalf of the IO. Prosecution only SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg32of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 examined PW2 duty officer who registered the FIR under SC/ST Act and assigned the investigation to the circle officer. Apex court in case titled "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chunni Lal @ Chunni Singh, 2009 (12) SCC 649" held that investigation of an offence u/s 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. Apex court in para 7 observed as under:
"7. For appreciating the rival submissions, reference needs to be made to Section 9 of the Act and the Rule 7 of he Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as "th Rules"). Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules read as follows:
"9. Conferment of powers(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do,
(a) for the prevention of and for coping with any offence under this Act, or
(b) for any case or class of group of cases under this Act, in any district or part thereof, confer,by notification in the Official Gazette, on any officer of the State Government the powers exercisable by a police officer under the Code in such district or part thereof or, as the case may be, for such case or class or group of cases, and in particular, the powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg33of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 before any Special Court.
(2) All officers of police and all other officers of Government shall assist the officer referred to in sub section (1) in the execution of the provisions of this Act or any rule, scheme or order made thereunder. (3) The provisions of the Code shall, so far as may be, apply to the exercise of the powers by an officer under subsection (1)".
"7. Investigating officer - (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/ Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it alongwith right lines within the shortest possible time.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government.
(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer in charge of prosecution and SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg34of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer".
32. As per section 9 of the Act, there should be notification in the official gazette conferring power under this Act, and as per Rule 7, the investigation cannot be conducting by an officer below the rank of DSP. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that there is no violation of any rules in conducting investigation as investigation was conducted by circle officer of rank of DSP. There is no doubt that the investigation is conducted by official of rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, however as the IO Ram Babu Singh circle officer could not be examined because of his death, it is duty of prosecution to examine any substitute official to exhibit the documents and the investigation conducted by him, and to depose that the said DSP was given powers by a notification in the official gazette. No such evidence is led by the prosecution that the IO circle officer Ram Babu is duly notified through gazette notification for investigation, therefore merely on the basis of the statement of Duty officer, it cannot be held that IO circle officer Ram Babu Singh is competent to investigate. Thus, prosecution not able to prove that the investigation was conducted in compliance of provisions of SC/ST Act.
33. Ld. Addl PP as well as counsel for complainant stated that accused is found guilty in contempt petition by apex court and this itself suggest that he has no respect of public officials. These submissions cannot be appreciated in this case because of the fact it is neither the part of investigation nor the the evidence, and also not put to the SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg35of 36) dated : 28.01.2019 accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
34. Though the prosecution able to prove the fact that the accused insulted, humiliated, intimidated intentionally the complainant by caste remarks in public view, however not able to prove the offence as charged u/s 3(1)(x) as envisaged by the mandate of judgments as discussed. Furthermore, the prosecution not able to prove that the investigation is conducted by the authorized and competent person in accordance to provisions of SC/ST act.
35. In view of the above discussion, prosecution not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused Mahipal Singh Rana is granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge framed u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C in sum of Rs. 25,000/. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in the open Court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
On 28th January, 2019 ASJ02 (South)
District Court Saket / New Delhi
SC No.6972/16, S/v Mahipal Singh Rana , FIR No. 785/99 , PS Kotwali Nagar (pg36of 36) dated : 28.01.2019