Delhi District Court
Fir No.153/2012 State vs Shobha Chandra Etc. Page No. 1 Of 44 on 15 May, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE(SC/ST ACT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
S.C.No.264/16
FIR No. 153/2012
U/s 323 IPC & 3 SC/ST Act
PS Kalyanpuri
State
Versus
(1) Shobha Chandra w/o Sh. B.S.Mittal
R/o 26,Housing Society, South ExtensionI
New Delhi110049
Also at Bal Vikas Vidyalya
8 Block, Trilokpuri, Delhi91
(2) Rama Govil w/o Sh. Chandra Kant Govil
Hony Secretary, Bal Vikas Samiti
E63, South ExtensionI
New Delhi110049
Also at Bal Vikas Vidyalya
8 Block, Trilokpuri, Delhi91
......Accused Persons
Date of Institution: 17.07.2013
Arguments heard on: 26.02.2020
Judgment pronounced on: 15.05.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.02.2012, FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 1 of 44 complainant Mangesh Dhillod filed a complaint before the SHO PS Kalyanpuri alleging that she has been working as Teacher in Bal Vikas Vidyalya, Block8, Trilokpuri for last about 22 years. For last many months, Secretary of Bal Vikas Samiti namely, Smt. Rama Govil and Manager Smt. Shobha were pressuring the teachers to fill the forms of volunteership. They have got the volunteership forms filled by some teachers by threatening and pressuring them. The teachers who have not filled the said forms have been given increment of Rs.100/ p.m and the teachers who have filled the forms were given increment in between Rs.500/ to Rs.1000/. It is further alleged that when a complaint was made before Education Department, a committee was formed. Pursuant to the same, on 13.02.2012, one teacher namely Anil Sharma was thrown out. She further alleged that on 14.02.2012, both Shobha Chandra and Rama Govil came to the school and snatched the mobile phones of all the teachers and also obtained the signatures of some of the teachers on blank papers forcibly by threatening them. They threatened the teachers either to sign the blank papers or to go out of the school. She further alleged that both Shobha Chandra and Rama Govil came to her room and they manhandled and beaten her and told and uttered "hum bhangi chamaro ko school me nahi padhane denge". She alleged that she was caught by her hair, laid down and beaten. She was threatened to be killed. At the time, when she was being beaten, the gate was locked and the people outside alongwith her FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 2 of 44 husband and teachers were crying "not to do it". During beatings given to her, her mangal sutra of about 1½ tola has gone missing. Her complaint may be registered for taking appropriate action and teacher namely Anil Sharma be taken back. The complaint was made and signed by the complainant Mangesh Dhilod alongwith 11 other teachers. On receipt of the said complaint, on the directions of DCP, SHO made endorsement for registration of the case. Accordingly, the case was registered through duty officer. The investigation was entrusted to ACP concerned. ACP inspected the spot and prepared the site plan. On 14.02.2012, complainant was got medically examined vide MLC no. 1466/12. As per MLC, bruise on upper part of chest, linear abrasion on left forearm were found. For detailed examination, complainant was referred to SR Gynae. According to SR Gynae, no any injury mark on abdomen was found. According to victim, she was pregnant but UPT was negative in LR. During investigation, statements of witnesses namely Rita Mitra, Renu Sharma, Ranjana, Leela, Suman Thapliyal, Anil Sharma, Beena Bhatia, Santhlesh, Komal, Harsh Chawla, Monika and Geeta were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Caste certificate of the complainant was obtained and got verified from Tehsildar Executive Magistrate and caste of complainant was revealed as "Balmiki". IO obtained the photocopy of the attendance register of dated 14.02.2012 from the school which confirmed that complainant was present in the school. Accused were not arrested in the present case FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 3 of 44 and thus, after completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against three accused persons without arrest.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge u/s 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act and 323/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which both the accused pleaded not guilty. It is pertinent to mention here that third accused Sudha Rajput was discharged vide order dated 15.01.2014 wherein it has been observed that complainant, in her complaint does not speak about presence of Sudha Rajput and does not allege anything against her at all; the witnesses have spoken about the presence of Sudha Rajput, however, none of them stated that Sudha Rajput stated anything or did anything against the complainant or anyone else; the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against Sudha Rajput. Thus, she was discharged for want of sufficient incriminating material against her.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. PW1 is HC Yatvir Singh. He is the duty officer. He recorded the FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW1/A, endorsement made by PW1 is Ex.PW1/B.
4. PW2 is Mangesh Dhillod. She is the complainant.
5. PW3 is HC Satyavir Singh. He deposed that on FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 4 of 44 14.02.2012, at about 4.14 p.m., a lady namely Mangesh Dhillod came to PS and gave one written complaint. The said information was recorded in DD No.59B, the complaint is already Ex.PW2/A and true copy of DD no.59B is Ex.PW3/A.
6. PW4 is Dr. Rakesh Singh. He appeared for Dr. Paresh and Dr. P.C. Sahu. The MLC prepared by Dr. Paresh is Ex.PW4/A. He deposed that after examination, the injured was referred to Gynae department for further examination and opinion.
7. PW5 is W/SI Veena. She is the duty officer. She recorded DD no.17A copy of which is Ex.PW5/A.
8. PW6 is Ms.Renu Sharma. PW7 is Ms.Rita Mitra. PW9 is Ms.Ranjana Srivastav. PW10 is Ms. Leela. PW11 is Ms.Santlesh. PW12 is Ms. Suman Thapliyal. PW13 is Ms.Beena Bhatia. PW14 is Ms.Komal. PW15 is Harsh Chawla. PW17 is Anil Kumar Sharma. They were working in Bal Vikas Vidyalya on the relevant date.
9. PW8 is Dr. Aparna Chaturvedi. She deposed that as per record the victim was pregnant and as per UPT, the victim (Complainant) was not pregnant. She was advised for ultrasound vide endorsement Ex.PW8/A.
10. PW16 is Mukesh Pal. He appeared from the office of FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 5 of 44 SDM with record of caste certificate no. 11019/SH/92/3713 issued to Mangesh Dhillod. The copy of the register is Ex.PW16/A.
11. PW18 is ACP Rajesh Sharma. He is the then SHO. He deposed that he received the complaint Ex.PW2/A. He made endorsement on the complaint Ex.PW18/A and got the case registered. Further investigation was marked to Sh. Gaurav Sharma, ACP.
12. PW19 is Sh. Gaurav Sharma. He is the then ACP Kalyanpuri. He deposed that on 14.05.2012, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/DB. He visited the residence of eye witnesses and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He collected the copy of caste certificate which is Ex.PW2/C. He got verified the said certificate and it was found to be genuine. He also collected the certified copy of the attendance register and placed the same on file which is Ex.PW19/A. He collected the certified copy of the termination letter of Anil Sharma alongwith photocopy of passbook which is Ex.PW19/B. Copy of passbook is Mark PW19/1. He prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW19/C. He requested the Court to extend the time for filing the chargesheet and his request was allowed. After completion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet.
13. Statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C were FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 6 of 44 recorded wherein both the accused have stated that they are innocent and they have not committed any offence. FIR was registered just to harass them. The injuries reflected in MLC of complainant were self inclicted or had occured on account of her trying to assault them. The present case has been falsely registered because on 13.02.2012, Anil Sharma was terminated and in order to pressurize the accused persons to fulfill the illegal demands of complainant as well as to reinstate Mr. Anil Sharma, the present complaint was filed. They don't have knowledge about the caste of the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion for them for making any castiest remarks against the complainant. Accused Rama Govil stated that she lodged DD no.45B dated 13.02.2012, DD no.78B dated 14.02.2012 and DD entry no.48B dated 22.02.2012 against the complainant and Mr. Anil Sharma about their nefarious plans to create law and order problem in the school premises. The complainant was not physically assaulted by them and her injuries were self inflicted or had occurred on account of her trying to assault them on the date of incident. There was no independent public witness inside the premises. Accused Shobha Chandra has taken the defence that she has no knowledge about the affairs and functioning of the school. She held no positon in the school. She had visited the school only twice in her life with Rama Govil. She had immediately made a call to police vide DD no. 17A dated 14.02.2012. Accused persons opted to lead the defence evidence and FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 7 of 44 examined four witnesses.
14. DW1 is Rajesh Kumar. He produced the record from labour department. The orders passed in the labour matter are Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/4.
15. DW2 is Ct. Govind. He was working as reader to the then SHO. He deposed that the record of complaints of year 2012 has been destroyed vide order no. 827856/HAR/East District on 30.01.2017, the copy of order is Ex.DW2/1, reply of SHO is Ex.DW2/2. He could not identify the seal on the photocopoy of complaints Mark DW2/A to Mark DW2/C.
16. DW3 is Rakesh Sawhney.He has brought the record of Writ Petition no. 10560/15, the copy of the same is Ex.DW3/1.
17. DW4 is Rama Govil. She is the accused. She deposed that the complainant and other witnesses were working in the school as teachers. She deposed that she had filed the complaints dated 13.02.2012, 14.02.20212 and 22.02.2012 because complainant alongwith Anil Sharma and other teachers were indulged in unlawful activities . She further deposed that since Anil Sharma was terminated from the school on 13.02.2012, they were under the apprehension that there might be problem of law and order in the school and as a precautionary measure, she made complaints to FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 8 of 44 SHO on 13.02.2012. She produced the said complaints which are Ex.DW4/1 to Ex.DW4/3.
18. Arguments were heard from the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, Ld. Addl.PP for the State who was duly assisted by the complainant. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence. It is submitted that there are material contradictions in regard alleged castiest words. The Prosecution witnesses have turned hostile in regard to the incident and some of them have admitted the suggestions put by the Ld. Addl.PP in affirmative. Accused were not aware about the caste of the complainant. He further argued that as per the complaint, the incident occurred in the room and thus, there is no witness of public view in this case. It was further submitted that no castiest words were used and that no injury was caused to the complainant. It was submitted that infact the complainant herself inflicted the injury just to falsely implicate the accused when she came to know that a prior complaint has been made by the Management. Ld. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court on the testimonies of each and every witness stating that either the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case or they have turned hostile. It was submitted that the complainant has also made lots of improvements in her testimony and there are several contradictions also which prove the falsity of her statement. Ld. Counsel submitted that the version of FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 9 of 44 complainant regarding castiest remarks cannot be relied when allegedly all the accused spoken the same words together. Ld. Counsel argued that prosecution has not examined even a single independent witness and all the witnesses are her colleagues and they cannot be termed to be independent witnesses. Ld. Counsel has relied upon various case laws i.e. Peedikandi Abdulla Vs. State of Kerala (1998 Cril LJ 2758), Jasrath Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. (2005)(4) MPLJ 363, Chandra Poojari Vs. State of Karnataka (1997) 4 Kant LJ 81, State vs. Om Prakash Rana & ors. (2014(1) JCC 657, Sundamati Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 (2) Mh.L.J 339, State of Karnataka Vs. Irappa Dhareppa Hosamani (2001 Cril LJ 3566, Pappu singh Vs. State of UP 2002 Cri LJ 1251, Manisha Uday Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2013 SCC Online Bom 1972, Vijender Singh Vs. State (2015(1) JCC 309, D.P.Vats Vs. State & Ors (2003) 99 DLT 167, Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State (2008) 8 SCC 435, Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State (2004) 109 DLT 195, Kusum Lata Vs. State & Ors. 2015 IVAD (Delhi) 362, The State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Laxmiprasad Yadav 2014 Cri.LJ 4103, Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors 2009 Cri LJ 350, Anil Kumar Pandey Vs. Daulat Prasad 2005(4) MPLJ 467, Mukesh Kumar Saini vs. State (Delhi Administration) 2001 (60) DRJ 65, Pandurang, Tukia and Builia Vs. The State of Hyderababd AIR FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 10 of 44 1955 SC 216, Haridas Vs. State of Maharashtra 1997 Cri LJ 122, Shyam sunder ram Vs. State & Ors 2001 Cri LJ 3835, Mitter Sen & Ors vs. The State of UP 1976 1 SCC 723, Gaya Din & Ors vs. Emperor AIR 1934 Oudh 124, Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1987) 66 RLW 274, Vinay Singh Vs. State & Anr (in W.P.(Crl.) 3613/2018 and Crl.M.A. 4822/2018, Bashir Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 1994 Cri LJ 2526, Ram Narain Singh vs. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 497, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Darshan Singh 2019 SCC Online 1431, Sudershan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2014) 15 SCC 666, Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal & Ors. (2016) 16 SCC
418. Request has been made for acquittal of the accused persons.
19. Per contra, Ld. Addl.PP argued that the complainant as well as other staff/witnesses have made specific allegations against the accused persons in their statements recorded before the Court and the testimonies of all the witnesses remained unimpeached. Ld. Addl. PP has specifically stated that the incident was viewed by other witnesses who are not related to the complainant and that their testimonies can be relied being independent witnesses. It is further stated that the public witnesses have clearly stated that the accused persons have used castiest remarks against the complainant and that they have given similar statements in this respect. It is also FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 11 of 44 submitted that complainant has also supported the prosecution case and elaborated the incident in her testimony and through her testimony also prosecution has established the allegations of use of castiest remarks and assault. It is stated that even during cross examination, she remained firm. Thus, it is submitted that the accused persons may be convicted and punished as per law.
20. PW2 Mangesh Dhillod is the complainant. PW6 Renu Sharma, PW7 Rita Mitra, PW9 Ranjana Srivastav, PW10 Leela, PW11 Santesh, PW12 Suman Thapliyal, PW13 Beena Bhatia, PW14 Komal, PW15 Harish Chawla and PW17 Anil Kumar are the other teachers of the school. As per the prosection case, they were present at the time of incident and they have witnessed the incident. Therefore, they are the star witnesses of the prosecution. There is no other independent witness and all the witnesses are teachers and coworkers of complainant PW2. Entire case of the rests upon their testimonies. Perusal of the statement of all the eleven witnesses reveals that except PW2, they all have been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP for the State on material aspects. After declaring them hostile, witnesses have admitted the suggestions put by the Ld Addl.PP in affirmative. Though, they have been declared hostile on material points, however, their testimonies have been analysed with regard to allegations made in this case.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 12 of 44
21. PW2 Mangesh Dhillod (Complainant) stated that she was working as Teacher in Bal Vikas Vidyalya for last 22 years and that Smt. Rama Govil (Secretary), Sudha Rajput(Principal) and Shobha Chandra (School Manager) were putting pressure upon her for filling up of the volunteership forms for last one and half year. The said forms were not filled by her and other teachers. They made a complaint to Education Department due to which the accused persons got annoyed. A committee was formed and explanation was sought from them. She further deposed that on 13.02.2012, one teacher Anil Sharma was turned out as he refused to fill up the volunteership form. She further deposed that on 14.02.2012 at about 10.30 a.m, all the three persons came to her classroom and she was asked to write on a blank paper "hamara shoshan (exploitation) nahi ho raha" and sign it but she refused for the same. She further deposed that accused Shobha Chandra snatched her purse and took out her mobile phone from her purse. She struck her against the black board by pulling her hair due to which swelling occurred on her head. She became semi unconscious and fell down on the floor. At the same time, accused Rama Govil kicked her on her stomach. She was pregnant at that time. She tried to escape but Sudha Rajput caught hold her from back side and in this process her kurta was torn from front side. She raised alarm "bachao bachao" and ran towards the gate and the teachers, staff and children of the school came out. She further deposed that all the three accused were shouting "hum FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 13 of 44 bhangi chure chamaro ko school me nahi padane denge, ye hamara school hai, neech jaati ki hamare se argument karti hai". She was hit by kicks & fists blows by the accused persons. She further deposed that during the incident her mangalsutra weighing 1½ tola was got broken by the accused persons. Police was called and she was taken to PS but no FIR was registered. SHO asked her to get her medical done on her own. She went to the hospital and police officials reached afterwards. She deposed that bleeding continued and she was vomiting till reaching the hospital. She made complaint before SC Commission which is Ex.PW2/E and copy of MLC is Ex.PW2/C. During enquiry, all the accused were found guilty. Lastly, on 10.05.2012, FIR was registered, copy of which is Ex.PW1/A. Her complaint to SHO is Ex.PW2/A. She had given caste certificate to the ACP and shown the spot.
22. PW6 Smt. Renu Sharma is another teacher of the same school and her services were suspended. She deposed that she heard some noise from the adjacent class room. She went there and saw that accused persons namely, Shobha Chandra and Rama Govil were quarreling with Mangesh Dhillod and she noticed that worn clothes of Mangesh i.e. sleeves of her worn kurti was torn. The accused persons while quarreling used castiest words bhangi chamar against Smt. Mangesh. She alongwith the staff pacified the matter. She was delcared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP for the State wherein she admitted that accused persons FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 14 of 44 were taking the signatures on plain papers that there was no harassment in the school. She admitted that when Mangesh refused to sign the blank papers, then she was beaten and rebuked by the accused and her hair were caught and she was dragged and castiest words bhangi chamar chuda were also used against her.
23. PW7 Smt. Rita Mitra is also a teacher. She deposed that on the day of incident, accused Rama, Shobha and Principal Sudha were getting the signatures of the teachers on first floor and forcing them to write that there was no exploitation in the school but the teachers refused for the same. She deposed that they came down at the ground floor and on hearing the shrieks of students, she came out to bring them back to the classroom. She saw that Sudha Rajput was standing in front of the staircase and holding the hands of a teacher namely Mangesh and her hair were spread. She did not see the incident of beating. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP wherein she admitted that the mobile phones were snatched forcibly. She denied that suggestion that in her presence, Smt. Mangesh Dhillod objected to signing of blank papers or that accused Rama Govil and Shobha had then badly beaten up and abused her and made castiest remarks Chamar, chura etc. She stated that she did not see the torn cloth of Mangesh or that she suffered scratches on her neck and hand and that her mangalsutra was also broken.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 15 of 44
24. PW9 Ranjana Srivastav is another teacher of the school. She deposed that Rama Govil alongwith Sudha Rajput were getting endorsement from the teachers that mera shoshan nahi ho raha. She deposed that the teachers who refused to give the said fact in writing, Rama Govil and Sudha Rajput had snatched their mobile phones, however, later on, said phones were returned. She heard noise and when she came out, she saw Mangesh, Rama Govil, Sudha Rajput and other teachers and students were standing there. Mangesh was perturbed and her hair were untied. She did not see who untied the hair of Mangesh nor the incident took place in her presence. She further stated that she had seen the clothes of Mangesh in torn condition. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP wherein she admitted that Rama Govil and Sudha Rajput were threatening the teachers that they would be thrown out of the job if they do not give in writing "Vidyalya mai shoshan nahi ho raha hai". She denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl.PP regarding any castiest words used by the accused persons or giving beatings to Mangesh.
25. PW10 Smt. Leena has stated that in the year 2012, Smt. Rama Govil and Shobha Rajput were obtaining a writing from teacher "ish school mai shoshan nahi ho raha". She stated that she saw the hair of Mangesh untied. She did not see the incident. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP wherein she admitted that incident occurred on FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 16 of 44 14.02.2012 . However, she denied rest of the suggestions given by the Ld. Addl.PP
26. PW11 Santlesh deposed that Shobha Chandra, Rama Govil and Sudha Rajput were forcing the teachers to sign blank papers having writing "vidyalya mein koi soshan nahi ho raha hai". She stated that accused persons threatened them that if they do not sign on blank papers, they need not to come to the school. She deposed that when Mangesh Dhillod refused to write the same, accused persons started beating her. PW11 tried to help Mangesh but accused persons started rebuking and exhorted castiest words bhangi, chuda chamar etc. Mangesh Dhillod received injuries on her person. Her worn clothes were torn. She was also declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Adld.PP wherein she admitted when Mangesh refused to sign on blank papers then accused rebuked her and assaulted her and made castiest words bhangi, chuda, chamar etc. She admitted that mangalsutra of Mangesh was also broken.
27. PW12 Suman Thapliyal deposed that accused persons forced them to sign on blank paper that they were not being harassed. She signed on the said paper. She saw that there was noise in the play ground. She saw Mangesh Dhillod standing and weeping and accused persons were surrounding her and her hair were scattered. She told her that accused persons had beaten her. She FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 17 of 44 noticed that her worn cloths were torn. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP but she denied about witnessing any beating or use of filthy language and castiest words against Mangesh Dhillod.
28. PW13 Smt. Beena Bhatia deposed that accused persons came to her class and asked to sign on a paper on which "hamara Shoshan nahi ho raha" was written. She signed the same. After sometime, she heard the noise from the ground floor. She went there. She deposed that Mangesh was shouting that accused persons had beaten her and also used wrong words. She had not seen anything happened with Mangesh. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP wherein she admitted that accused persons were visiting each class and forcing the teachers to sign on blank papers and to write on the same that vidyalya me koi shoshan nahi ho raha hai. She denied the suggestion that when the teachers were refusing for signing the said paper, the accused were threatening him/her for dire consequences. She denied the suggestion that when Mangesh Dhillod refused to sign, she was beaten and castiest words were used by the accused against Mangesh. She denied the further suggestions put by Ld. Addl.PP for the State.
29. PW14 Komal deposed that both the accused came to her room and asked to write vidyalya me shoshan nahi ho raha hai FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 18 of 44 on a blank paper and sign it and she signed the same. After sometime, she heard the noise from ground floor. She went there and saw the accused persons with Mangesh. Mangesh told her that she had been beaten by the accused persons badly. She noticed scratches on the hands of Mangesh and on her neck and her worn clothes were torn. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP wherein she admitted that when Mangesh objected and protested for the same and refused to sign, then accused persons started beating her in her class room. She denied the suggestion that filthy language or castiest words were used against the complainant.
30. PW15 Harsh Chawla deposed that accused persons came to his room and made him write vidyalya me shoshan nahi ho raha hai and he signed the same. He further deposed that at about 11 a.m., he heard the noise and he came out of the class and saw Smt. Mangesh Dhillod standing on the ground floor. He reached there and saw that accused persons were there and he noticed that worn cloths of Mangesh Dhillod were torn and her hair were also scattered. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP. He denied the suggestion that on protesting the same, he was threatened by the accused persons to terminate from his service. He denied the suggestion that on protesting the same by Mangesh, she was beaten or that he saw the accused using castiest words of bhangi, chamar,chude against Mangesh. He admitted that FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 19 of 44 there were scratch marks on the hands and neck of Mangesh Dhillod.
31. PW17 Anil Kumar Sharma deposed that he was terminated from the service on 13.02.2012. He deposed that on 14.02.2012 at about 10.30 a.m, he was present at the gate of the said school. He saw teacher Mangesh weeping near the stairs of class room. He noticed that her cloth were torn and hair were scattered. Both the accused were saying to Mangesh words like chura chamar and that they would not allow chura chamar in the said school. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP. In cross examination he admitted that on 14.02.2012 both the accused alongwith Sudha Rajput were inspecting the working of the school staff by visiting every class room. He admitted that the accused persons were pressuring them to sign a blank paper and to write that "Vidyalya me shoshan nahi ho raha hai and that the teachers who were refusing to sign and write the same were being threatened to be terminated from their services. He admitted that Mangesh Dhillod refused to sign and write the above to which accused persons rebuked her in filthy language and also used castiest words bhangi chamar, chura against her. He admitted that in the said quarrel, the clothes of Mangesh were torn and she had received abrasions/scratch marks on her neck and hands and her mangalsutra was also broken.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 20 of 44
32. Perusal of the statement of PW2 recorded before the Court as also the statement Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which the present case has been registered revealed that both the statements are contradictory. Both are entirely different statements. The most part of the statement made by the complainant before the Court is an improvement. She has made glaring improvements in regard to the material allegations. In her statement, PW2 Magesh Dhillod has made allegations that the accused persons were putting pressure for filling up of volunteership forms for last one and half year. They made complaint to Education Department and on making complaint, accused persons became more annoyed. A committee was formed and explanation was sought from the accused persons. Firstly, she stated in cross examination that she had not stated to the IO that on making the complaint, the aforesaid persons became more annoyed from them or that a committee was formed by the education department and explanation was sought from the accused. She did not receive any notice from the education department. Secondly, the complainant has not proved on record any document on file to show that any complaint was made or that department sought any explanation from the accused persons.
33. PW2 further alleged that 14.02.2012, accused persons came to her room and asked her to write 'hamara shoshan nahi ho raha hai' and sign on blank paper. In cross examination, she stated that accused persons were pressuring her for filling up volunteership FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 21 of 44 form for last about 1½ year of filing of the complaint. Complainant has not proved any complaint on record in this regard made by her to any authority. She has not given any reason for asking her to write the same by the accused persons. No such writing of any other teacher has been collected or filed on the record to establish that accused persons were getting this writing from the complainant or other teachers.
34. PW2 has further alleged that accused Shobha snatched her purse and took out her mobile. She struck her against the black board by pulling her hair due to which swelling occurred at her head. She further alleged that accused Rama Govil kicked on her stomach and she was pregnant at that time and at that time accused Sudha Rajput caught her from back side and her kurta was torn. It is pertinent to mention here that said Sudha Rajput has already been discharged by the Court at the stage of Charge. Complainant has not assailed the said order till today. Furthermore, the allegation with regard to snatching of purse and taking out of mobile phone, striking her head against the black board by pulling her hair, kicking at her stomach by accused Rama Govil as also holding the complainant by Sudha Rajput from back side and tearing of her kurta is an improved version. The said allegations are not part of the complaint Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered. She admitted that no kurta was handed over by her to IO.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 22 of 44 Thus, the material piece of evidence has not been placed on record which create further doubt about the version of the complainant.
35. PW2 has further alleged that she raised alarm as bachao bachao and ran towards the gate and the teachers, staff and children of the school came out. None of the staff or children have been made witnesses in this case.
36. PW2 further alleged that all the accused shouted "hum bhangi chure chamaro ko school me nahi padane denge, yeh hamar school hai,neech jaati ki hamare se argument karti hai". In cross examination, she stated that she had heard that the said school was established for the purpose of educating the children of weaker section of the society. She admitted that the majority of students studying in the school are of schedule caste category. Thus, it is clear that the accused persons were running a school for educating the children of weaker section of the society and even majority of the students studying in the school were from schedule caste category. Thus, if the accused persons would be of such a mindset, they would not have established the school for the upliftment of the students of weaker sections of the society. Further, PW2 admitted that she submitted her CV (Curriculum Vitae) to the school at the time of her appointment. The said CV is Ex.PW2/DA. Perusal of the same reveals that the Caste of the complainant has not been stated in FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 23 of 44 the CV. She also admitted that she did not submit her caste certificate to the school authorities. Accused persons are not the residents of the locality of PW2 so that they could know about the caste of PW2. The caste of the complainant cannot be observed from the name of the complainant. Under these circumstances, it is doubtful that accused persons would be aware about the caste of PW2. Furthermore, PW2 stated that all the accused have shouted together "hum bhangi chure chamaro ko school me nahi padane denge, yeh hamar school hai,neech jaati ki hamare se argument karti hai". This version of PW2 is not trustworthy as it cannot be assumed that both the accused would have shouted together by using the same words as stated by PW2. In the matter of Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 2001 (60) DRJ 65, Hon'ble High Court been held that : 'the basic ingredients under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are that there must be an "intentional insult" or "intimidation" with "intend" to humiliate SC/ST member by a nonSC/ST member and the insult must have been done in anyplace within "public view".... Merely calling a person by caste would not attract the provisions of this Act. There must be specific accusations alleged against each of the accused. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be pressed into service. Omnibus statement that all the accused persons uttered allegedly humiliating word may not be enough. This being a penal provision has to be given a strict interpretation. If any ingredient is found lacking, it would not constitute an offence.' FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 24 of 44 In the matter of Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia Vs. The State of Hyderababd AIR 1955 SC 216, it has been held that : '....People do not ordinarily act in a unison like a Greek chorus and, quite apart from dishonesty, this is a favourite device with witnesses who are either not mentally alert or are mentally lazy and are given to loose thinking. They are often apt to say "all" even when they only saw "some" because they are too lazy mentally to differentiate. Unless therefore, a witness particularizes when there are a number of accused, it is ordinarily unsafe to accept omnibus inclusions like this at their face value'.
37. As per the statement of PW2, accused persons had come inside the class room of PW2 where the alleged incident had taken place. Thus, the uttering of castiest words could not have been heard by any other person except the students. But no student has been cited as witness in this case. PW2 has stated that she made a complaint to SC Commission and the accused were found guilty by the SC Commission. But no order passed by the SC commission has been placed on file or proved by the complainant.
38. PW2 further alleged that her mangalsutra of about 1½ tola was broken by the accused persons. She has not clarified as to where the said mangalsuter has gone. Whether he has lifted the same FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 25 of 44 and handed over to the police. There is no seizure memo available on file. IO of this case is also silent in this respect. Alleged torn Kurta has also not been handed over by the complainant to the police. Thus, the allegations of manhandling are also highly doubtful.
39. Complainant has alleged that SHO asked her to get the medical examination done at her own at LBS Hospital and then she got herself medically examined at LBS Hospital and police officials reached after she reached. This version of PW2 is contradictory to the MLC Ex.PW4/A. As per MLC, she was taken to the hospital by W/Ct Munesh.
40. Complainant has made considerable improvement in the statement made by her before the Court to her statement Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. This statement was made by the complainant before the Police on 14.02.2012. Record reveals that PW2 has also filed photocopy of complaint made to SC/ST Commission. The said complaint is without name and signature. It is also without any date, however, it was marked to someone on 21.02.2012. It seems the said complaint was made after the statement dated 14.02.2012 was given to the police. The said statement made to SC commission is therefore, seems to be an afterthought as it is also a different statement from FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 26 of 44 the initial statement of the complainant.
41. PW6 Renu stated that she saw the accused Shobha Chandra and Rama Govil quarreling with Mangesh. She also noticed that worn clothes of Mangesh were torn. She further stated that accused persons used castiest words bhangi chamar against Mangesh. However, in her cross examination PW6 admitted that her phone was not taken by the accused. Accused have not got signed any document from her either on that day or prior to that day. She came to know from the students that Rama and Shobha were forcing the teachers and staff to sign blank papers. Thus, as per PW6 she was never asked by the accused persons to sign any document. She further admitted that she did not hear any abusive word or castiest words and that Mangesh was neither bleeding nor vomiting. She admitted that she had not seen Mangesh (PW2) being beaten or pulled by the accused. Admission of PW6 that she did not hear any abusive words or castiest words and that she had not seen Mangesh being beaten or pulled by the accused clearly indicates that she is not the witness of the incident. She seems to have deposed against the accused being a suspended employee. Further, the words deposed by PW2 regarding castiest remarks and the words mentioned by PW6 are contradictory to each other and this creates further doubt about the version of PW2 that accused had used the said words.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 27 of 44
42. PW7 Rita Mitra did not make any allegation against the accused persons regarding beating given to complainant Manglesh or regarding castiest words used by them against the complainant. She has specifically stated that she did not see the incident of beating. She denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl.PP in respect of beating the complainant or use of castiest words against her.
43. PW9 Ranjana Srivastav has made no allegation regarding any castiest words used against the complainant or beating given to her. She did not see the said incident. She only stated that Rama Govil and Sudha were getting endorsement of teacher that "mera shoshan nahi ho raha". She stated in her statement that mobile phones were snatched but the same were returned later.
44. PW10 Leena stated that she did not see the incident. She was declared a hostile witness and she did not support the case of the prosecution and she denied the suggestions put by the Ld. Addl. PP during cross examination, in respect to the incident of beating and use of castiest words.
45. PW11 Santlesh though, in her examination in chief stated that complainant was beaten by the accused persons and castiest words were used against her but in cross examination she FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 28 of 44 stated that alleged incident was already over by the time she had reached at the spot. Thus, it is clear that she did not see the incident. In her further cross examination, she stated that she had no mobile on that day. Accused persons did not come to her room. She had signed no blank papers. She signed declaration in the year 2004, 2005 and 2006. She did not file any complaint regarding the forceful execution of the declaration forms. She did not see the accused visiting the class rooms on the ground floor. She admitted that she did not see as to what transpired in the class rooms situated at the first floor. She admitted that accused had never come to her room for the purpose of getting any voluntary form or a blank papers.
46. PW12 Suman Thapliyal stated that Mangesh Dhillod told her that the accused persons had beaten her and she noticed that her worn clothes were torn. PW12 therefore, did not see the incident with her own eyes. She denied the suggestions of Ld. Addl.PP regarding beatings given to Mangesh and use of castiest words against her. She denied the suggestion that both the accused persons alongwith Sudha Rajput had forced Mangesh Dhillod to sign the paper upon which Vidyalya me shoshan nahi hota hai was written.
47. PW13 Beena Bhatia stated that complainant Mangesh Dhillod was shouting that accused persons had beaten her and used wrong words. This version of PW13 clearly indicates that she had FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 29 of 44 not witnessed the incident. Even despite declaring her hostile by the prosecution, she denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl.PP that complainant was beaten or that castiest words were used against her.
48. PW14 Komal had also not seen the incident with her own eyes. She was told about beatings given to the complainant by complainant herself. However, in her cross examination conducted by the Ld. Addl.PP she admitted the suggestion that accused persons had beaten the complainant but she reached the spot later on, after hearing the noise. Thus, it cannot be said that she had witnessed the incident.
49. PW15 Harsh Chawla had also not seen the incident of beating and use of castiest words. He specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl.PP regarding beatings given to PW2 as well as the use of castiest words i.e. bhangi,chamar, chuda against her.
50. As per deposition of PW17 Anil Kumar Sharma, he was terminated from the service of Bal Vikas Vidyalya on 13.02.2012. He deposed that on 14.02.2012, at about 10.30 a.m, he was present at the gate of the said school and he saw one teacher Mangesh weeping near the stairs of class room. Accused persons had surrounded her and they were saying to Mangesh words like chura chamar and that they would not allow chura chamar in the said FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 30 of 44 school. Admittedly, PW17 was terminated on 13.02.2012 and the incident of the present case occurred on 14.02.2012. He did not state that he was inside the school on 14.02.2012. There is no explanation by PW17 as to why he was present at the gate of the school on 14.02.2012 when his services were already terminated. Further, as per statement of PW2 Mangesh, the incident of beating and use of castiest words took place inside her class room. The distance between the gate of the school and spot where complainant Mangesh is stated to be standing has been specified in the cross examination of PW17 as 150 feet. Since as per statement of PW2, the incident had taken place inside the room, thus, it was not possible for PW17 to witness the same.
51. In cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl.PP, PW17 admitted that on 14.02.2012, both the accused alongwith Sudha Rajput were inspecting the working of the school staff by visiting every class room. However, as per the statements of other witnesses they were forcing the teachers to write 'vidyalya mai unka shoshan nahi ho raha hai'. He further admitted that the accused persons were pressuring them to sign a blank paper and to write that "Vidyalya me shoshan nahi ho raha hai and that the teachers who were refusing to sign and write the same, were being threatened to be terminated from their services and that Mangesh Dhillod refused to sign and write the above to which accused persons rebuked her in filthy language and also used castiest words bhangi chamar, chura against FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 31 of 44 her and that in the said quarrel, the worn clothes of Mangesh were torn and she had received abrasions/scratches marks on her neck and hands and her mangalsutra was also broken. The said admissions of PW17 in the cross examination are not trustworthy as PW17 was not present inside the school/classrooms of the teachers. He was already terminated on 13.02.2012. It is not understandable as to how he admitted the said suggestions put by the Ld. Addl.PP as he ought to have been present inside the school/rooms to witness the same. As per the statements of other teachers, complainant Mangesh came out after the incident. They have not stated that the incident had taken place near the stair case where PW17 Anil Kumar Sharma had seen PW2 Mangesh standing. Other witnesses have not alleged that any incident had taken place near the stairs. This fact falsifies the claim of PW17 to have seen the incident of beating or use of castiest words against Mangesh. It seems that PW17 has deposed against the accused persons only because he was terminated on 13.02.2012.
52. PW9 stated that only accused Rama and Sudha came to the rooms while PW2 stated that all the three Rama Govil, Sudha Rajput and Shobha Chandra came to the rooms of the teacher. PW6 named only Rama and Shobha while PW10 named Rama Govil and Shobha Rajput. There are contradictions in this respect in the case of the prosecution.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 32 of 44
53. In this case, charge has been framed u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act and 323/34 IPC. Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act, makes intentional insults or intimidations with intent to humiliate a member of a SC or ST in any place within public view, a punishable offence, if such insult or intimidation was committed by a person not being a member a SC/ST. To constitute the offence under this section, the necessary conditions are (1) the affected person should be a member of SC/ST, (2) The offender should not be a member of a SC/ST, (3) There must be an intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a SCT/ST and (4) such insult or intimidation should have been made in any place within the public view.
54. In the present case, PW2 Mangesh is the member of SC/ST as her caste certificate has been collected by PW19 Gaurav Sharma which is Ex.PW2/C and on verification, the same was found to be genuine. The accused persons are not the members of SC/ST category. On conjoint reading of evidence of all the PWs as discussed above, it is revealed that PW6 Renu did not hear any abusive words or castiest words. She had not seen Mangesh being beaten or pulled by the accused. PW7 Rita Mitra, PW9 Ranjana Srivastav and PW10 Leena made no allegations against the accused persons in their statements with regard to use of castiest words against complainant Mangesh Dhillod or beatings given to her. PW11 Santlesh made allegations against the accused persons in examination in chief but in cross examination she stated that the FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 33 of 44 incident was already over by the time she had reached at the spot and thus, it is clear that she did not witness the incident. PW12 Suman Thapliyal was told about the incident by PW2 Mangesh Dhillod. PW13 Beena Bhatia stated that she heard the noise and when she reached there, Mangesh Dhillod was shouting that accused persons had beaten her and also some wrong words were spoken. She stated that she had not seen anything happening with Mangesh. Thus, she is also not the witness of incident. PW14 Komal stated that Mangesh told her that she had been beaten by the accused persons badly. She is also a witness of hearsay. In cross examination, PW15 Harsh Chawla has denied the suggestion of Ld.Addl.PP that when Mangesh refused to sign, then accused persons started beating her in her class room and when she tried to save herself and raised alarm after coming out of her class, he saw that the accused persons used castiest words against her. He denied that he had seen the incident with his own eyes. Thus, he is also a hearsay witness. PW17 Anil Kumar Sharma has levelled the allegations against the accused persons that they had beaten the complainant and used words like chura chamar and that they would not allow chura chamar in the said school. The testimony of this witness is doubtful as he was terminated from the school prior to the date of incident. He could not explain as to why he was standing at the gate of the school on that day without any rhyme or reason. PW2 stated that accused persons came to her room, beaten her and used FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 34 of 44 castiest words. Ld. Addl.PP has also put the suggestion to PW15 which he denied stating that "it is incorrect that when Smt. Mangesh Dhillod objected and protested for the same and refused to sign the said paper then accused persons started beating her in her class room and when she tried to save herself and raised alarm...". Thus, the case of the prosecution is that the incident occurred inside the room. PW17 was admittedly standing at the gate of the school which is at the distance of about 150 feet from the stairs where Complainant Mangesh stood after coming out of the class room. Since the incident occurred inside the classroom, it was impossible for PW17 to see the incident by standing at the school gate which was at the distance of about 150 feet. Nothing material has come on record in the evidence of PW6, PW7, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15 and PW17 against the accused persons.
55. As far as the statement of PW2 is concerned, complainant has made considerable improvements in her version before the Court from her statement Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. She has exaggerated her version before the Court. The complaint before SC Commission has been made by her after making the statement Ex.PW2/A. Thus, the complaint made by her before SC Commission seems to be an afterthought. Further, she has placed the photocopy of the complaint Ex.PW2/E made by her before SC Commission. It does not bear her FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 35 of 44 name or signatures. No writing with signatures of the teachers with regard to "harama shoshan nahi ho raha hai" has been filed on record to establish that accused were doing so. PW2 alleged that accused persons shouted "hum bhangi chure chamaro ko school me nahi padane denge, yeh hamara school hai, neech jaati ki hamare se argument karti hai". This version is not found recorded in the statement Ex.PW2/A. It has only been recorded that "bhangi chamaro ko school me nahi padane denge". Thus, PW2 has given a contradictory version in this respect. Complainant made allegations against three accused but one of the accused namely, Sudha Rajput was discharged by the Court for want of any material against her. Order of her discharge has not been challenged by the accused. Thus, the version of complainant and other witnesses is also not trustworthy on this count also. Further, as per PW2, accused persons have used the said words together. It cannot be assumed that both the accused would have shouted together by using these words. PW2 has not specifically stated as to which accused used which castiest words. PW2 has admitted in the cross examination that majority of the students studying in the school are of SC category. The accused persons were running a school for educating the children of weaker sections of the society and even majority of the students were of SC category. If the accused would have had a grudge against the members of SC/ST Category, they would not have established the school for their upliftment. Further, it has not FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 36 of 44 come on record that accused persons were aware about the caste of the complainant. The complainant has nowhere divulged details about her caste. Further, as per PW2 and even as per suggestions given to PW15 by the Ld. Addl.PP, the incident took place inside the room. Hence, none else except complainant Mangesh, students and the accused were present in the room. However, none else could have seen the incident except the children. But no children has been cited as witness or examined in this case. Since the incident took place inside the room, none else could have heard the castiest remarks. Even if testimony of other witnesses is considered, they stated that castiest words bhangi, chamar, chuda were used but PW2 has made entirely different statement in this regard. Thus, the allegations related to the use of castiest remarks are not trustworthy. Further, in the present case, there is no witness of public view as the incident took place inside the class room and no student has been cited as witness in this case. The other witnesses are the teachers and colleagues of the complainant. They cannot be regarded as independent witnesses. In the matter of In the matter of D.P.Vats vs. State & Ors. (2003) 99 DLT 167, it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court that : '....If he had no knowledge of his caste status, the offence under sub section (1) (x) would not be constituted. Similarly, if his utterance was not directed against a member of SC/ST in contradistinction to a group of members of SC/ST or the community as a whole, it would not again make out an offence under sub section (1) (x).
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 37 of 44 The world "a member" occurring in the provision assumes crucial importance in this context and leaves no scope for doubt that it must be directed against the individual member and not against a group of members or the crowd or the public in general though these may comprise of SC/ST. If it is made in generalised terms against all the sundry and is not individual specific in the name of caste, it would not make out an offence under the firstsection, the rationale being that intentional insult, intimidation and humiliation made in the name of case was liable to be caused to a person and in this case to an individual member of SC/ST and not to a group of members or general public'.
In the matter of Swaran Singh & Ors. vs. State (2008) 8 SCC 435, it has been held that :
'...if the offence is committed outside a building, i.e., 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...
In the matter of Daya Bhatnagar & ors. Vs. State MANU/DE/0085/2004, it is observed by Hon'ble High Court in head not that :
'Constitution - interpretation - Sec. 3 (1) of SC/ST Act - Interpretation of expression 'public view' u/s 3 (x) discussed - public view envisages that public persons present there should be independent, impartial - person not having any commercial or business relationship or FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 38 of 44 other linkage with the complainant - it would also not include persons who have previous enmity or motive to falsely implicate accused persons - merely because witness who is otherwise neutral or impartial and who happens to be present at house of victim by itself cannot be disqualified'.
In the matter of Kusum Lata Vs. State & Ors. 2015 IVAD (Delhi) 362, it has been held that :
'the expression "public view" has to be interpreted to mean public person present should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties'.
56. It is clear from the statements of the witnesses that either they did not witness the incident or their statement is doubtful. Thus, Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act is even otherwise not made out against the accused persons.
57. Charge has also been framed against the accused persons u/s 323 IPC. In the matter of Shyam Sunder Ram Vs. State & Ors. 2001 Cri LJ 3835, it has been stated in head note that held that :
'.. Trial court convicted the accused u/s 323/34 and 341/34 IPC Appellant Court acquitted the acucsed - same was challenged - contradictions between evidence of witness established - No evidence was established to prove the case - Prosecution case found to be doubtful - hence, accused entitled for benefit of doubt...' FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 39 of 44 In the matter of Gaya Din & Ors. Vs. Emperor AIR 1934 Oudh 124 the Hon'ble Court held that in a case where the major portion of the prosecution evidence is found to be false and tainted with gross exaggerations, it is impossible for me to build up a case of an offence u/s 323 IPC, out of the mass of lies told by the prosecution witnesses.
In the matter of Ram Narain Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 497 it has been held that :
'where the evidence of the eyewitnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert this is most fundamental defect in the prosecution's case and unless this defect is explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case of the Prosecution. Where the direct Evidence is not supported by expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the Prosecution's case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on basis of such evidence.' In the matter of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Darshan Singh 2019, SCC Online 1431, it has been held that :
'After placing reliance upon State of U.P. Vs. Hari Chand [(2009) 13 SCC 542] it has been held that where the medical evidence goes so far as to completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence should be disbelieved.' FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 40 of 44
58. PW2 stated that she was hit by kicks, fists blows by the accused persons. The prosecution has examined Dr. Rakesh Singh who deposed that as per the MLC of Mangesh Dhillod she was brought to the hospital by W/Ct Munesh with the alleged history of assault. She complained of headache, vaginal bleeding, 6 months of amenorrhea with pain in abdomen and vomiting. Her MLC is Ex.PW4/A. It is mentioned on the MLC "alleged history of assault". PW2 Magnesh was brought to the hospital by W/Ct. Munesh on 14.02.2012 i.e. the day of alleged incident. As per MLC, PW2 suffered bruise on upper part of chest 6cm x 6 cm and linear abrasion on left forearm. PW2 Mangesh was referred to Gynae department of opinion. Prosecution has examined PW8 Dr. Aparna Chaturvedi from Gynea department. She has stated that as per UPT, the victim was not pregnant. Thus, it is clear that PW2 was not pregnant at the time of alleged incident and that she has deposed falsely in this respect. PW2 stated that SHO asked her to get the medical examination at her own at LBS Hospital and then she got herself medically examined at LBS Hospital and police officials reached there after her reaching. The said deposition of PW2 is also incorrect. As per MLC Ex.PW4/A she was taken to hospital by W/Ct. Munesh. Admittedly, the accused persons were known to the complainant. Perusal of MLC reveals that she has not disclosed the names of the accused persons to the doctor as the persons who had FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 41 of 44 caused her injuries. Complainant has alleged that her kurta was torn and mangalsutra was broken but the IO has not seized the said kurta and mangalsutra to establish that any such incident of manhandling/beating had taken place. In the complaint Ex.PW2/A she has alleged that her hair were caught and she was beaten by the accused persons. There is no other independent witness to the beatings given to PW2. No student has been made witness in this case. She further alleged that at the time of beating her, there was lock at the gate and her husband, and other school teachers were shouting 'aisa mat karo'. In cross examination, PW2 stated that at the time of incident, her husband was employed at a workshop situated at Lodhi Road. She admitted that her husband was present outside the gate of the school. She volunteered that he was present outside the school as she was to go for medical check up. But she had no appointment with any doctor on that day. When she had no appointment, there was no reason for the presence of husband of PW2 outside the school. PW17 Anil Sharma, who was the terminated one day prior from the school was also present outside the school. He admitted in cross examination that he knew the husband of Mangesh Dhillod prior to the date of incident. It means that both PW17 and husband of the complainant were present outside the gate. There was no reason for them to be present outside the school gate on the date of incident. Thus, possibility of their having a premeditated idea to implicate the accused persons cannot FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 42 of 44 be ruled out. Accused persons have also examined the witnesses in defence. Perusal of the statement of DW1 reveals that teachers of the school had filed the claim petitions against the school which were dismissed. DW4 has stated that she had made a complaint. One Writ Petition has also been filed by Harsh Chawla (witness in this case) before the Hon'ble High Court related to minimum wages and to fix the pay scale of at par with MCD teachers. Thus, it seems that the actual dispute between the Management (accused persons) and complainant/witnesses was related to wages and the present case might have been got filed just to pressurize the accused persons in a premeditated way. Accused persons have taken the plea in their statements that the injuries on the person of complainant PW2 are selfinflicted. There were only bruise on the chest and linear abrasion left forearm. PW4 Dr. Rakesh in cross examination has stated that he cannot admit or deny that the injury of the patient Mangesh are self inflicted/old injuries or not. Thus, the injuries on the person of PW2 may be self inflicted. Further, no injury was there on the forehead or head as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. It is therefore, not proved that the injuries caused on the person of PW2 were caused by the accused persons and the benefit of the same goes to the accused persons. Since there was hostility between PW2 and other teaches and the Management thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, possibility of their false implication cannot be ruled out.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 43 of 44
59. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons for the offence punishbale u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act as well as u/s 323/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Both the accused are therefore, acquitted for the offence u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act and u/s 323/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/ each with a surety of the like amount u/s 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room after the bail bonds are furnished.
Announced in the open court on 15.05.2020 (AJAY GUPTA) Special Judge (SC/ST Act) KKD COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No.153/2012 State Vs.Shobha Chandra etc. Page no. 44 of 44