Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs Balwinder Singh And Another on 29 March, 2010
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.490-SBA of 2001
DATE OF DECISION: March 29, 2010
Karnail Singh
.....Appellant
versus
Balwinder Singh and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate (Amicus Curaie)
for the appellant
None for the respondents
..
RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral)
This is an appeal preferred by the complainant Karnail Singh against the judgment and order dated 1.7.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, acquitting the accused of charge under Section 298 IPC in a criminal complaint case.
The complaint was lodged on the allegation that complainant/appellant along with one Surjit Singh, son of Joginder Singh, Sadhu Singh, son of Gian Singh and Pal Singh, son of Joginder Singh had visited the office of Village Society on 24.7.1998 at 11.00 A.M. The purpose of their visit was to seek loan from the said Society, as they were members of the Society. On reaching the office of Society, they requested Balwinder Singh (respondent No.1) for loan as per their entitlement as they were Harijans (Scheduled Castes). Crl.Appeal No.490-SBA of 2001 - 2 - However, instead of acceding to their request, both the accused abused the complainant in filthy language and used certain objectionable words relating to their caste. The same are reproduced in the complaint. The complainant along with Pal Singh were told to leave the office of the Society and not to visit it again. According to complainant, the entire episode was witnessed by Karnail Singh and Dalbara Singh. The complainant made complaints Mark-1 and Mark-2 to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana for taking action against accused/respondents but to no effect and thereafter the instant complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon.
On the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the accused were summoned to face trial under Section 298 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the complainant himself stepped into witness box as CW-1 and Pal Singh deposed as CW- 2 and closed their evidence. Thereafter, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused plainly denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. They also examined two witnesses in defence i.e. Gurmail Singh, Ex.President of the Society, as DW1 and Pishora Singh, Inspector of the Co-operative Society, Leelan, Tehsil Jagraon, as DW2.
After completion of trial, the trial Court came to the conclusion that complainant had failed to prove the allegations against the accused and thus, acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. Crl.Appeal No.490-SBA of 2001 - 3 -
During the course of hearing of the case, the counsel, who preferred the instant appeal, failed to appear before this Court. As a result, this Court requested Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that evidence of CW-1 and CW-2 was sufficient to convict the accused under Section 298 IPC. According to her, the accused were also guilty of offence under the relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Atrocities Act').
I have heard learned Amicus Curiae at length and perused the record received from the trial Court.
In support of complaint, complainant Karnail Singh stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and simply reiterated the allegations levelled in the complaint. The deposition of CW-2 was no different. However, Gurmail Singh, Ex. President of co-operative society, stepped into the witness box as DW1 and produced the attendance certificate (Exhibit D1) and copy of leave application (Exhibit D2) to show that on the date of alleged occurrence, Sukhdev Singh was on leave. Besides, the other defence witness i.e. Pishora Singh, Inspector of the Co-operative Societies, who appeared as DW2, deposed that Balwinder Singh was busy in inspection being conducted by him (Inspector Pishora Singh) and the complainant never visited the office of the Society on the said day. DW2 further deposed that he remained present in the office of the Society on 24.7.1998 from 10 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. when certain other office bearers were also present and he made entry at page No.32 of the proceeding register of the Society. The copy of Crl.Appeal No.490-SBA of 2001 - 4 - entry was produced by him as Ex.D3 to show that Balwinder Singh, accused/respondent remained busy with him in conducting inspection of record of Society and deposed that complainant and Pal Singh never visited the office of the Society on 24.7.1998.
Relying upon the deposition of the defence witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence produced in the shape of attendance certificate (Exhibit D1) and leave application (Exhibit D2), the trial Court came to the conclusion that allegations levelled in the complaint were false. The trial Court further observed that accused could not be convicted merely on the basis of oral testimony of CW- 1 and CW-2. This apart, the complainant also failed to examine those persons, who according to him, were present at the time of alleged occurrence and were witnesses thereto, namely, Karnail Singh and Dalbara Singh.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Admittedly, the charge was framed only under Section 298 IPC. The framing of charge was never challenged by the accused at any stage. Even otherwise, the trial Court came to the conclusion that ingredients of offence under Section 298 IPC were not made out. The argument of learned counsel that relevant sections of the Atrocities Act were attracted to the case and accused could have been convicted under the same, is devoid of merit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the charge was never framed under the relevant sections of the Atrocities Act. Secondly, on the basis of same evidence, which was led before trial Crl.Appeal No.490-SBA of 2001 - 5 - Court, it would have been difficult to convict the accused under the said Act. On the other hand, sufficient documentary evidence was led before the trial Court to show that on the relevant date, accused Sukhdev Singh was on leave and Balwinder Singh, accused was busy in inspection. Needless to say that in view of this evidence, the accused could not have been convicted even under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. Thus, it appears that the allegations levelled in the complaint are totally false and untrue.
For the reasons afore-stated, no interference is called for in the judgment of acquittal delivered by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
March 29, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE