Delhi District Court
10. In Case Of Pishora Singh vs . State Of Punjab & on 13 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
SHAHDARA, DELHI
Unique Case Identification No.0240R0770202007
SC/ST NO.16/09 Date of Institution :07.09.2009
PS Farsh Bazar Date of Argument :06.07.2012
U/S 3 SC & ST (POA) Act Date of Order :13.07.2012
Sh. Surat Singh
S/o Sh. Charan Singh,
R/o Village Behata Hazipur,
Tehsil-Loni,
District Gaziabad, U.P. ...........Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. S.C Jain,
Vice Principal,
Jain Senior Secondary School,
Gali Jain Mandir,
Chhota Bazar, Shahdara,
Delhi - 110 032.
2. Sh. Baru Singh
C/o Jain Sr. Sec. School,
Gali Jain Mandir,
Chhota Bazar, Shahdara,
Delhi - 110 032.
3. Sh. R.P. Sharma
C/o Jain Sr. Sec. School,
Gali Jain Mandir,
Chhota Bazar, Shahdara,
Delhi - 110 032.
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 1 of 47
4. Sh. Kaniya Lal Singhal
Jain Senior Secondary School,
Gali Jain Mandir,
Chhota Bazar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110 032. ......Accused persons
JUDGMENT
The facts of the case are that complainant Sh. Surat Singh filed a complaint dated 03.12.2007 before Ld. ACMM, KKD, Delhi on 04.12.2007, u/s 3 of the Scheduled caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, here in after referred to as the Act and Sections 4 & 7 of protection of Civil Rights Act, here in after referred to the PCR Act, on the allegations that he belonged to (Jatav) scheduled caste community and was employed as Waterman at Jain Senior Secondary School, Gali Jain Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi. Previously, he was posted at Rattan Devi Arya Girls Senior Secondary School, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, and he had been working there for about 20 years. On 11.10.2007, he was transferred to Jain Senior Secondary School. On the first day of his joining on 11.10.2007, Sh. S.C. Jain, Vice Principal of this school, here in after referred to as accused No.1, asked him about his caste. He informed him that he belonged to Jatav Caste.
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 2 of 47Accused No.1 said Jatav means Chamar and told him that he was not going to take the job of Waterman from him and the complainant would be working as Safai Karamchari, i.e. he would clean the school, latrine, tables and chairs, etc. as all the members of the management and staff belonged to higher castes and they could not take water from the complainant. The complainant explained to Accused No.1 that he had been posted as Waterman for the last 20 years and he had been doing the same job and the job of cleaning was the job of Safai Karamchari. Accused No.1 got annoyed and told the complainant that nobody will take water from him. On 22.10.2007 and 23.10.2007, the complainant was forced by accused No.1 to clean the latrine as well as clean the school premises including tables and chairs. Nobody took water from the complainant as he belonged to scheduled caste. On 24.10.2007, Accused No.1 called him and told him that he (complainant) was cleaning the school premises and other articles and he was directed to go and clean the latrine as a bad smell was coming from there. The complainant refused to do so by explaining that it was not his job. Accused No.1 got annoyed and started shouting on him and uttered "Sale Chure Chamar if you will not clean latrine then your Bap will clean it. We do not take water from the SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 3 of 47 Chure's and Chamars." When he again refused to clean the laterine, accused No.1 again got annoyed and caught hold the complainant from his collar and started beating him with legs and fists and also threatened the complainant to kill him. His shirt was also torn by accused No.1. In the meantime, Sh. Babu Singh, here in after referred to as accused No.2, Sh. R.P. Sharma, here in after referred to as accused No.3 and Sh. Kaniya Lal Singhal, here in after referred to accused No.4 also came there and all of them, including accused No.1, caught hold the complainant and beat him and said "Sale Chure Chamar if you will not clean the latrine, we will kill you." One Raju and Smt. Sondei came there and saved him from the clutches of above persons. He went to the PS Farsh Bazar and also told about the incident to the police but police did not take any action against the accused persons and instead the complainant was booked U/s. 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. and he was sent to jail. He was released from jail on bail on 26.10.2007. On 27.10.2007, he moved an application before the DCP, East District Delhi, but no action was taken against accused persons, who had committed an offence U/s. 3 of the Act and Section 4 & 7 of the PCR Act. Complainant prayed for summoning and trial of the accused, as per law.
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 4 of 472. Ld. MM, recorded the pre-summoning evidence. Sh. Raju as CW1, HC Manoj as CW2, Smt. Sondei as CW4 and Dr. Amit Gupta, Casualty Medical Officer from Hedgewar hospital as CW5 were examined. Complainant examined himself as CW3. Ld. MM, vide his order dated 11.06.2009 after considering the pre-summoning evidence of complainant and considering the status report/inquiry report filed by the ACP, summoned accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s. 3 of the Act and Sections 323/341 IPC and remaining three accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Sh. Baru Singh, Sh. R.P. Sharma and Sh. Kaniya Lal Singhal were summoned for the offences punishable U/s. 323 and 341 IPC.
3. On appearance, copies of the documents were supplied to the accused persons. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 1.9.2009, committed this case to the Court of Sessions as it was exclusively triable by the Special Court/Court of Sessions. This case was assigned to this Court, being the designated Court for trial of offences punishable under the Act.
4. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 26.3.2011, was of the view that a prima facie case for framing the SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 5 of 47 charge against accused No.1, i.e. Accused No.1 U/s. 3 (1)
(x) of the Act as well as Section 323/341 IPC was made out. She was also of the view that prima facie case against accused No.2 to 4 i.e Sh. Baru Singh, Sh. R.P. Sharma and Sh. Kaniya Lal Singhal, was also made out for the same offences and accused No. 2 to 4 could not be discharged merely on the ground that they were summoned only for offences punishable U/s. 323/341 IPC.
5. Charge against all the four accused persons was framed and read over to all the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and for the offences punishable u/s 341/323/34 IPC. All the four accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of his case, complainant examined. H.C Manoj from the office of DCP as PW1, Sh. Raju as PW3, Smt. Soan Dei @ Soan Devi as PW4 and Dr. Amit Gupta, Sushruta Trauma Centre, Metcalf road, Delhi as PW5. Complainant examined himself as PW2.
7. After closing of prosecution evidence, statements of accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. S.C Jain and R.P. Sharma, accused admitted that complainant SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 6 of 47 had been serving in Ratan Devi Arya Girls Senior Secondary School in Krishan Nagar, Delhi prior to 11.10.2007. Accused Kaniya Lal Singhal expressed his ignorance about this fact. Accused Baru Singh replied that he came to it subsequently. All the four accused admitted that complainant on transfer from said school joined Jain Secondary School, Chota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi as Waterman on 11.10.2007. Accused No.1 also admitted that on 12.10.2007, he handed over a water bill and asked the complainant to deposit the same in the office of G.T Road and that from 13.10.2007 to 21.10.2007, there were vacations in the school. The accused persons in respect of remaining prosecution evidence, replied that the evidence was incorrect. All the accused persons pleaded that they were innocent and complainant Surat Singh falsely implicated them and PW Raju and Sondei deposed against them as they were the relative of complainant.
8. In their defence, accused persons examined Smt. Karuna Arora, a teacher of Jain Secondary School, as DW1: Sh. Om Veer Singh, a resident of Dilshad Garden as DW2: Sh. Ranjeet Singh Gupta, retired Principal as DW3:
Sh. Harvash, a resident of Godai Mohalla, Shahadara, Delhi and DW4: Sh. Ramesh Chand Jain, Secretary of Jain Samaj, SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 7 of 47 Shahdara, as DW5: Sh. Praveen Kumar, Safari Karamchari of Jain Secondary School as DW6: Sh. Kapoor Singh, Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Daman & Deu, the then, ACP Vivek Vihar as DW7 and Dr. Abhishek, Casualty Medical Officer, Dr. Hedgewar hospital, Delhi as DW8.
9. After closing of evidence by parties, I have heard lengthy arguments of Ld. defence Counsels and arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the state, duly assisted by Counsel for complainant. I also perused the rulings submitted by Ld. defence Counsels in support of their arguments. Let us scrutinize the evidence on record.
10. In case of Pishora Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2002, Cri L.J. 4130, it was held by the Court that in order to make out an offence under S 3(1) (x) of the Act following ingredients must subsist: (i) the act attributed should amount to intentional insult or intimidation; (ii) it should be with the intention to humiliate ; (iii) it should be directed against a member of SC or ST; and (iv) the act attributed should have taken place in public view.
Whether complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 8 of 47
11. PW2 on this aspect deposed that in response to query raised by accused No.1 on 11.07.2007, he replied that his caste was Jatav. He also deposed that he belonged to scheduled caste community and his caste was Jatav. He produced his caste certificate dated 13.11.2007 issued by Sh. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Tehsildar Ghaziabad vide No.106 dated 13.11.2007 and that was exhibited as Ex.PW2/E. In cross examination he stated that he had filed caste certificate in Ratan Devi School in the year 1987 at the time of his appointment and that was lost and he got issued another caste certificate on giving application in the year 2007. Caste certificate to his children were issued after issuance of his caste certificate. DW9 on this aspect deposed that on 13.11.2007 she was posted as Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Tehsildar, District Ghaziabad. He had seen document Ex.PW2/E and that certificate was signed by her at point A and it was signed by Sh. Suresh Kumar Mishra at point B. She identified signature of Mr. Mishra as she had worked with him for about four years. She also identified seal of tehsildar below signature of Tehsildar. DW10 in this regard deposed that she could not bring the summoned record because that register was not available in her office. Twelve registers including the register concerning Ex.PW2/E were sent to SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 9 of 47 Facilitation Center (Suvidha Kendra) and four registers including register pertaining to Ex.PW2/E were not received back. DW7 in his cross examination deposed that in the matter he made inquiries, relates to the complaint of Surat Singh in which he has made allegations against accused No.1 and others. He ascertained the caste of Surat Singh and he belonged to scheduled caste.
12. It has been argued by Ld. defence Counsels that prosecution even could not prove that Surat Singh belonged to the scheduled caste and accused persons belonged to caste other than scheduled caste. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that prosecution could not prove caste certificate Ex.PW2/E as original register was missing and could not be produced. This argument of Ld. Defence Counsels is not sustainable as DW9 proved the certificate Ex.PW2/E and DW10 proved the circumstances in which the register having entry of Ex.PW2/E could not be produced in the court. In my view evidence on record has proved document Ex.PW2/E. On perusal of this document I find that it has been mentioned therein that complainant Surat Singh belonged to Jatav caste which is one of scheduled caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh. All the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 10 of 47 Cr.P.C. did not deny the fact that complainant Surat Singh belonged to scheduled caste community. All of them only expressed their ignorance about this fact. Their defence witness DW7 deposed that Sh. Surat Singh belonged to scheduled caste. Accordingly, it is held that prosecution has proved that complainant Sh. Surat Singh belonged to scheduled caste.
Accused persons belonged to caste other than scheduled caste
13. PW2 on this aspect deposed that on 12.10.2007 accused No.1 and other staff did not treat him properly. They did not drink water served to them by him. Accused No.1 uttered, "Hum Oonchi Jati ke Log Hain, Tere Hath Ka Paani Nahin Piyenge." We the people of upper caste will not drink water served by you. PW2 also deposed that accused persons belonged to upper caste. In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.1 admitted that he did not belong to SC or ST caste and he is Jain by birth. Accused No.2 also admitted that he did not belong to either SC or ST caste. He stated that he is Kashyap by birth. Accused No.3 also stated that he did not belong to either SC or ST caste and he is Sharma by birth. Accused No.4 also admitted that he did not belong to either SC or SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 11 of 47 ST caste and he is Singhal by birth. Thus the evidence on record and admission of evidence by accused persons have proved that all the four accused persons belonged to a caste other than scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.
The act attributed should amount to intentional insult or intimidation with the intention to humiliate in public view
14. PW2 on this aspect deposed that he had been serving in the Rattan Devi Arya Girls Senior Secondary School at Krishna Nagar as waterman for the last 20 years. On 11.10.2007 he was transferred to Jain Secondary School, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi. He joined his duty in that school on 11.10.2007. Accused No.1 present in the court asked him as to what was his caste? He replied that his caste is Jatav. He said that, "Chamars are called as Jatav." Accused No.1 told him that he could not take his duty as a waterman and told him that he had to do the work of sweeping, cleaning of latrines and furnitures. He insisted that he was serving as a waterman and that he would perform his duty only as a waterman. Accused No.1 threatened and asked him, "Did you want to serve or not?"
Accused No.1 told him that he will spoil his service (naukri kharab kar denge). On 12.10.2007 Accused No.1 handed over him a water bill and asked him to deposit it in the SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 12 of 47 office at GT Road. He demanded conveyance charges. He uttered, "kya tere pair toot gaye?" (Have your legs broken?) Accused No.1 insulted him by saying, "Saale Chude Chamar Ke Bachche Jata Nahi." He went to water office at GT Road on foot and returned on foot in the office after depositing the bill. When he arrived in the school accused No.1 handed over a speed post envelop and directed him to deposit it in the post office adjoining to GT Road. When he returned to school, accused No.1 and other staff including Sachin, Jagbir, Pankaj, Manoj and others did not treat him properly. They did not drink water served by him to them. Accused No.1 also uttered, "Hum Oonchi Jati ke Log Hain, Tere Hath Ka Paani Nahin Piyenge." We the people of upper caste will not drink water served by you. After 12.10.2007 there were vacations. The school reopened on 22.10.2007. On 22/23.10.2007 accused No.1 with accused No.2 to 4 present in the court, compelled him to do the work of sweeping and cleaning of furnitures. On 24.10.2007 at about 7:30 a.m. accused No.1 called him in his office and told him that he was doing the sweeping and cleaning of furnitures properly but was not doing the cleaning of latrine. Accused No.1 ordered him to clean the latrines as bad smell from the latrines was coming. He replied that it was not his duty to clean the latrine. He SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 13 of 47 became angry and scolded him and caught hold of his collar neck and brought him out side the office and gave him fists and kick blows. Accused No.1 also uttered, Saale Chude Chamar Ke Bachche Agar Latrine Saf Nahi Karega To Tujhe Jaan Se Mar Denge Aur Agar Tu Nahi Karega to Kya Tera Baap Karega?" Accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 also arrived there and they also gave him fists and kicks blows and torn his shirt and they uttered, "Saale Chude Chamar Ke Bachche Agar Latrine Saf Nahi Karenga To Tujhe Jaan Se Mar Dengy."
Some other person also came there. Raju & Sondei also arrived there and saved him from accused persons. He was taken to PS by Raju & Sondei. He narrated all these incidents to the IO who did not lodge his FIR and even did not listen to him.
15. PW3 on this aspect deposed that on 24.10.2007 at about 7:30 or 7:45 a.m., he was standing outside the Ayurvedic Dispensary at Jain Mandir Gali, situated nearby school whose name he did not recollect. His aunt Smt. Sondei was also with him. He also heard noise of words, "Aey Chamar Chure Tere Ko Latrine Saaf Karni Padegi, Desk Saaf Karne Padenge." He saw that one sahab (indicated towards accused No.1) had caught hold neck of person present in the court (indicated towards PW2 Surat Singh) SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 14 of 47 and he was assaulting Surat Singh with legs and fists. Three more persons (indicated towards accused Nos.2, 3 &
4) were also present there and they also uttered that, "Aey Chamar Chure ye kam to tera hi hai nahin to tughe jaan se mar denge." Accused Nos.2 to 4 also started beating that person. He intervened and save him and took him to Farsh Bazar PS. Smt. Sondei also intervened at the spot to pacify the dispute.
16. PW4 Sondei deposed that 3-4 years ago at about 8 or 8:30 am her nephew Raju took her to dispensary situated near Jain Mandir Gali, Chhota Bazar as her B.P. was high. She and her nephew Raju heard voice of quarrel which was taking place inside the school. She heard that someone was abusing in the name of maa, behan and was saying, "chuda, chamar hai ise yahan se bhagao." (He belonged to scheduled caste. Get him removed from there.) She had gone inside the school with Raju and she saw Surat Singh in injured condition. She was declared hostile and during cross examination conducted by Ld. Prosecutor she admitted that some people of the crowd was saying, "tughe latrine desk saaf karne honge nahin to tughe jaan se mar denge."
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 15 of 4717. It has been argued on behalf of the Ld. defence Counsels that ingredients of Section 3 (x) of the Act are not available in the present case and therefore the prosecution could not prove its case against accused persons.
18. In support of their arguments, Ld. defence Counsels relied upon the case D.P. Vats Vs. State & Others, 2002[2] JCC 1180, wherein High Court of Delhi observed that:
"Section 3 enlists various actions as offences of atrocities and provides punishment of these. Though the FIR in question does not specify anyone of the actions covered by various sub-sections, it could at best be assumed that the allegations may proximate to sub-sections (1)(x) and (1)(xi) of the Act. First sub-section makes it an offence, if a non- SC/SCT intentionally insults or intimidates with the intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in any place within 'public view', punishable with minimum six months imprisonment which may extend to five years with fine. Similarly, sub- section (xi) makes it an offence, if a non-SC/ST person assaults or uses force to any women belonging to SC/ST with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. Relevant Sub-Sections read thus:-
"3. Punishments for offence of atrocities*** x. intentionally insults or intimidates with intent or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; xi. assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view,".
A plan reading of the two subsections brings out the following ingredients which are common to these in the present context:-
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 16 of 47(a) A person making the alleged derogatory utterance must know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting, intimidating with intent to humiliate him was a member of SC/ST.
(b) Such intentional insult, intimidation or humiliation must be directed against and made to a member of "SC/ST and for being member of SC/ST.
(c) The utterance must be made at any place within"punlic view".
In the present case, we are concerned with the first two ingredients and it emerges therefrom that a case would fall under the first sub-section only when the person making the derogatory utterance knows that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating in the name of the caste was a member of SC or ST. 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). The word "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 generalized terms against all the sundry and is not individual specific in the name of casts, it would not make out an offence under the first sub- section, the rationale being that intentional insult, intimidation and humiliation made in the name of caste was liable to be caused to a person and in this case to an individual member of SC/ST and not a group of members or public in general."
19. It has been further argued by Ld. defence SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 17 of 47 Counsels that the alleged incident did not take place in public view, therefore, offence punishable U/s. 3(1)(x) of the Act was even not made out.
20. In support of their arguments, Ld. defence Counsels relied upon a case Usha Chopra Vs. State & Anr., 2004[3] JCC 1770, wherein High Court of Delhi observed that:
"The allegations against the petitioner are contained in paragraph 5 of the complaint. A reading of paragraph 5 of the complaint as well as the statement of the Complainant as CW-1 does not disclose that the petitioner made the objectionable comments/remarks in "public view". The presence of the co-accused only of the petitioner does not constitute "public view" within the meaning of Section 3(1)
(x) of the Act. In a recent judgment of this Court in Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State; reported in 2004(2) JCC 1136:109(2004) Delhi Law Times 915, the words "public view" as used in Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act were interpreted and it was held that the "public view" means that persons from public should be present howsoever small in number to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
In the case in hand, neither the allegations in the complaint, nor the statement of the Complainant as CW-1 disclose that objectionable remarks/comments made by the petitioner were in "public view" and as such the complaint under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was well as summoning were groundless, unwarranted and an abuse of the process of law."
21. Ld. defence Counsel further relied upon a case SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 18 of 47 Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., IV 2008 CCR 330 (SC): 2009 CRI. L.J. 350, wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"In the instant case, the allegations of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused- appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law"
22. I have analyzed the evidence in this regard to see whether alleged incident had taken place within public view?
23. The phrase "in a place within public view" has been explained in case of Y. Vasudeva Rao & Anr. Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., 2005 Crl. L.J. 3774. It may be taken as a place where ordinarily the public visit for some purpose or other with uninterrupted regularity though not SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 19 of 47 continuously, any place where a Government office is located, any market, a place of public entertainment and the like, where people are expected to go and are invited is a place "within the public view" an office or an office room where the head of the office sits is also a place within the public view but the private ante chamber of such officer can not be treated as a place within the public view because except the personal servants of the officer, no body can enter the private chamber. Similarly, an officer's house is not a place within the public view. If a person open any shop- be it for selling services or be it for selling feed for prawn culture; opens such a shop with an implied invitation to the public to visit the shop for purchasing the feed sold, such a shop must be given a public character and is certainly a place within public view.
24. DW1 deposed that she had been serving as a teacher in Jain Secondary School Shahdara. On 24.10.2007 at about 7:50 or 7:55 a.m. in the morning in the chowk inside the staff room, Jain Secondary School, Shahdara, she along with staff members were standing there. Sh. S.C. Jain (accused No.1) came there and asked Surat Singh to open the lock of the room for sitting the staff members. Sh. Surat Singh replied that it was not his duty to open the lock SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 20 of 47 of the room and his duty was only to offer the water and he was ready to offer water if he wanted it. On this issue some conversation took place and complainant caught hold the collar of principal and pushed him backward. Like is the statement of DW2. DW7 also proved status record Ex.DW7/A. In documents EX.DW7/B-19 it has been mentioned that at the time of incident not only Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Singhal, Baru Singh, R.P. Sharma but also Smt. Karuna Arora, Sh. Ombir Singh, Sh. Jagbir Singh Tyagi, Sh. Ganesh Kumar, Sh. Rajesh Jain, Smt. Shilpi Jain and all other staff was present. Thus even by the testimonies of DWs it has been proved that place of incident was Jain Secondary School and its compound. Some of the DWs also admitted that they were also present at the time of incident. In cross examination DW1, initially denied the suggestion that Raju & Sondei arrived there and subsequently she changed her version and deposed that she was unable to reply if these persons arrived there? As per testimony of DW2 people of Jain Samaj were present in the school on 24.10.2007 at about 7.50 or 7.55 a.m. DW5 also deposed that he was Secretary of Jain Samaj Shahdara. On 24.10.2007, at about 7.50 a.m. there was a religious programmme in Temple Shahdara which is situated in Jain Secondary School itself and he was sitting SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 21 of 47 in the staff room of the school. Staff of the school was standing in the chowk of the school. As per testimonies of PW3 & PW4 they arrived at the spot and witnessed part of the occurrence. As per principles of law laid down in Y. Vasudeva Rao & Anr. Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., (supra), the Jain Secondary School and its compound is the public place and alleged occurrence was witnessed by the persons of public as well as most of the staff of the school. Therefore, it is held that arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that alleged occurrence did not take place in public view is not sustainable.
25. Ld. defence Counsels further argued that the statement of complainant is not believable as he had made considerable improvement in his statement. Besides, there are material contradiction between the statement of complainant and witnesses Raju and Sondei.
26. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons. The prosecution has proved that complainant Sh. Surat Singh belonged to scheduled caste and accused persons belonged to caste other than SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 22 of 47 scheduled caste. There are only minor contradiction, which are liable to be ignored.
27. Let us now examine the evidence of the parties in the light of the arguments of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
28. On scrutinization of evidence on record, I find contradiction on the following points which have also been emphasized by Ld. defence Counsels.
Time of Incident
29. PW2, complainant deposed that incident has taken place on 24.10.2007 at 7:30 am. PW3 stated the time of incident as 7:30 or 7:45 a.m. PW4 told the time of incident as 8:00 or 8:30 a.m. Use of Castiest Words
30. PW2 deposed that S.C Jain uttered " Kya tumhare per tut gaye?". He insulted him by saying "Saale Chude Chamar Ke Bachche Jata Nahi" "Hum Oonchi Jati Ke Log Hai" "Saale Chude Chamar Ke Bachche Agar Latrine Saf Nahi Karega To Tujhe Jaan Se Mar Denge Aur Agar Tuh SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 23 of 47 Nahi Karega to Kya Tera Baap Karega?" PW3 stated that he heard noise of words " Aye Chamar Cure tere ko latrine saaf karni padegi, desk saaf karne padege" "Aey Chamar Chure kam to tera hi hai nahin to tughe jaan se mar denge." PW4 deposed that he heard that someone was abusing in the name of Maa, Behan and saying "Chuda, Chamaar hai ise yahan se bhagao."
Visit of Police Station
31. PW2 deposed that he was saved by Raju and Sondei from the accused persons and he was taken to PS by Raju and Sondei. PW3 deposed that he intervened and save the complainant from the accused persons and he was taken to Farsh Bazar Police Station. He remained in the PS upto 12:00 noon. PW4 deposed that after the incident, Raju took him to his house and thereafter Suraj Singh left with Raju.
32. My attention goes to a case reported as Ramesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (HP) 2004(4) Crimes 60, wherein the the HP High Court observed:
"15. There are minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but because of errors in individual perceptions and observations such SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 24 of 47 contradictions are bound to occur. Secondly with the passage of time lapse of memory can also lead to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Human tendency to back up good cases by exaggerated version can be yet another reason for contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, while appreciating the evidence the Courts are not to attach undue importance to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the version given by the witnesses and not to disbelieve such statements as a whole because of such minor discrepancies/contradictions unless they go to the root of the case. The Court may ignore exaggerated part of the testimony and may act upon the part which may be otherwise reliable and trustworthy."
33. In case of Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 588 :
1999 A.I.R. (SC) the Apex Court Observed:
9. Be it noted that the High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 25 of 47 State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 88 :
AIR 1985 SC 48. In paragraph 10 of the report, its Court observed :
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trival details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals."
34. In case of Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 the Apex Court in paragraph 13 SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 26 of 47 observed:
"The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy."
35. It has to be seen if minor contradictions and the points discussed here in above have created any doubt about the genuineness of the occurrence under adjudication. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence available on record, and in view of the principles of law laid down in Ramesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (supra), Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (supra), and Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, (supra), I am of the view that neither the points raised by Ld. Defence Counsels nor the minor discrepancies in the SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 27 of 47 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses could create any dent in the prosecution case particularly when all the material witnesses deposed consistently.
36. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that PW Raju and Sona Diya are interested witnesses as they are the relatives of the complainant Surat Singh and therefore, their testimony is not reliable.
37. My attention goes to a case Nallamsetty Yanadaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1175 wherein it was held by Apex Court that:
"Ld. Counsel also submits that the eye witnesses were all interested witnesses and they tried to implicate many innocent persons and that it would be highly unsafe to accept their evidence. We see no substance in this submission. Here is a case where a large number of persons armed with deadly weapons, like guns and other cutting weapons participated in the occurrence during which four persons were killed and many of the witnesses who were present were also injured. It may be that they are all interested witnesses but on that ground alone their evidence cannot be rejected. Their evidence is to be subjected to close scrutiny."
38. PW3 in her cross examination denied the suggestion that he was brother (Sadu) of Surat Singh in relation. PW4 also denied the suggestion that Surat Singh SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 28 of 47 was brother (Sadu) of PW3 Raju.
39. DW4 deposed that he knew Raju as well as Surat Singh and they are brother in law (Sadu) of each other. PW4 is aunt of PW3. Thus as per testimony of DW4, PW3 Raju is relative of complainant and he and his aunt PW4 come in the category of interested witnesses. As per principles of law laid down in Nallamsetty Yanadaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (supra), testimonies of PW3 and PW4 cannot be discarded but their testimony has to be analyzed with close scrutiny, due care and caution.
40. It has also been argued by Ld. defence Counsels that there are considerable delay. The offence was partly committed on the date of joining i.e. 11.10.2007. But the complainant has failed to report the matter and that casts doubt about the truthfulness of the case of complainant/prosecution.
41. On perusal of file, I find that alleged incidents had taken place in between 11.10.2007 and 24.10.2007. A complaint EX.CW2/A by complainant was filed on 27.10.2007. In his statement PW2 deposed that after 12.10.2007 there were vacations. When he went to P.S. for SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 29 of 47 lodging of FIR, accused no. 1 with some influential persons also arrived there and got him falsely implicated in case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. and he was sent to jail and he was released on 26.10.2007. In this way the complainant has explained the delay for filing the complaint EX.CW2/A before the police commissioner on 26/27.10.2007. He further deposed that no action was taken on his complaint so he made a complaint EX.CW2/B in the court. On perusal of complaint No. 180F/2007, I find that complaint was filed on 04.12.2007. It is not expected from a class IV employee, complainant in the present case, serving in the school that he will lodge a complaint against the head of the Institution, i.e., the Principal, accused no. 1 in the present case on the same day when he is insulted or humiliated. In this way the explanation given by complainant for filing the complaint late, is convincing. As a result it is held that complainant has explained the delay and argument of Ld. Defence Counsels is not convincing in this regard.
42. As per the defence taken by accused persons, it was the complainant who committed various offences against accused no. 1 in the presence of remaining accused and other staff of the school. In order to prove their defence, as stated above the accused persons SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 30 of 47 examined ten witnesses.
43. Part of the testimony of DW1 has already been mentioned here in above. She further deposed that accused no. 1 had some conversation with complainant on the issue of opening of computer room and thereafter complainant caught hold collar of accused no. 1 and pushed him backward and slapped him. Gent teachers intervened and separated Surat Singh complainant from principal accused no. 1 from each other. Complainant left the school while abusing.
44. DW2 deposed that on 24.10.2007 at about 7.50 or 7.55 a.m. in the premises of Jain Secondary School, staff room was found occupied by Jain Samaj People and all the teachers were standing in the chowk outside the staff room. In the meantime principal, Sh. Sudhir Chand Jain accused no. 1, came there and on seeing the staff standing outside asked Surat Singh to open the lock of computer lab. He replied that his duty was to offer the water and he will not open the lock of computer room. Accused no. 1 told him that he will talk on arrival of Manager and he should open the lock of computer room. Surat Singh replied that Manager will come later on and he will teach him just then SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 31 of 47 and slapped principal accused no. 1 and gave fist blow in his stomach. Senior teachers intervened and separated them. Sh. Surat Singh left the school premises while abusing.
45. DW3 deposed that he retired as a Principal from Aided Sr. Secondary School. On 05.3.2008 he received a letter from the Manager of Jain Secondary School, Jain Mandir School, Shahdara duly approved by Directorate of Eduction appointing him as a Presiding Officer to conduct enquiry of Sh. Surat Singh. Sh. J.P. Singhal former DEO was the Enquiry Officer in the said matter. During enquiry Sh. Surat Singh stated that the Committee was improper and he did not want to say anything before the Committee and thereafter he left. He adjourned the enquiry several time. After recording of statements of official he concluded the enquiry and found that allegation against Surat Singh were found correct. He proved the attested copy of the report as EX.DW3/A, report of Mr. Singhal as EX.DW3/B and emergency treatment card of Sh. S.C. Jain as EX.DW3/1A.
46. DW5 deposed that he was Secretary of Jain Samaj, Shahdara. On 24.10.2007 at about 7.50 a.m. there was a religious programme in the Jain Temple, Shahdara SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 32 of 47 which is situated in Jain Secondary School itself and he was sitting in the staff room of the school. Principal Sh. S.C. Jain asked Surat Singh to open the computer room for the staff and he replied that it was not his work. Sh. S.C. Jain told him to open the computer room and told him that he will discuss the issue with the management. On that Sh. Surat Singh started abusing and beating S.C. Jain and also torn his clothes. He also uttered that management will see later and he will teach him right then. School teacher saved Sh. S.C. Jain from Sh. Surat Singh and Sh. Surat Singh run away from the school while abusing.
47. DW6 deposed that he was working as safai karmchari in Jain Secondary School. His duty was to clean the rooms, grounds, etc. He had been working in the school for the last 13-14 years. There was no other safai karmchari in the school. He knew Surat Singh as he was working as waterman for 3-4 days in the school. He was present on the first floor when he saw the dispute between him and Principal sahib. Abuses were being hurled by Surat Singh to Principal sahib and Principal was also saying something to Surat Singh. Surat Singh started scuffle. Teacher present in the court Sh. R.K. Sharma, Baru Singh Singhal and two more teachers and Khurana Madam SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 33 of 47 intervened and separated them. On complaint complainant Surat Singh requested to become his witness but he refused.
48. DW7 inter alia stated that in the year 2008 he was posted as ACP Vivek Vihar. An inquiry was conducted by the then ACP Sh. Ajeet Singh. On his transfer inquiry was assigned to him. He had conducted the inquiry and filed status report dated 04.03.2008 Ex.DW7/A. He recorded statement of complainant Ex.DW7/B. Witnesses Raju, Sondei, R.P. Sharma, K.L. Singhal, Ghanshyam Das, Pankaj Jain, Sachin Kumar, Omvir Singh, Shilpi Jain, Rajesh Kr. Jain, Karuna Arora, Upasana Kumari, Lalita Jain, Narender Singh, Parveen Kumar, ASI Ram Charan Singh, Sudhir Kumar Jain, handed over their written statements. He proved the same as Ex.DW7/B-1 to Ex.DW7/B-19 respectively.
49. DW8 deposed that on 24.10.2007 at about 8:15 a.m. he was posted in casualty as Casualty Medical Officer. A patient Sh. S.C. Jain came to casualty with alleged history of assault. He was complaining pain in left abdomen and left ear. On local examination he found small abrasions in the left side of his neck. He was advised X-ray abdomen.
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 34 of 47After giving first aid he was referred to surgery ENT. Photostat copy of MLC is proved as Ex.DW8/A.
50. As per principles of law laid down in case a case Pradeep Saini & Anr. v. State, 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 232, the evidentiary value of prosecution witness and defence witness is equal. The Delhi High Court observed that:
"51. Depositions of witnesses, whether they are examined on the prosecution side or defence side or as court witnesses, are oral evidence in the case and hence the scrutiny thereof has to be without any predilection or bias. No witness is entitled to get better treatment merely because he was examined as a prosecution witness or even as a court witness. It is judicial scrutiny which is warranted in respect of the depositions of all witnesses for which different yardsticks cannot be prescribed. As observed by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP AIR 1981 SC 911:-
".....Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution; and courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses......"
51. It would be appropriate to reproduce provisions of clause (x) of Section 3 (1) of the Act.
The relevant extract of the Clause is as under:
"3. Punishment for offences of atrocities.(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes,* * *
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 35 of 47 a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view ;* * * shall be publishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.* * *"
52. Now it has to be seen as to whether case of the complainant is true or defence taken by accused No.1 is true? Let us examine the case of parties one by one.
Accused No.1, S.C. Jain
53. On analyzing the evidence on record and considering the arguments, I come to the conclusion that defence taken by accused No.1 is not convincing and I find truthfulness in the case of the complainant. The reasons which support my decision are firstly that I find many inconsistencies and contradictions in the defence witnesses. The testimonies of DWs are not consistent. For example, in the statement of DW1, reference of Manager is not there. Her statement is silent about inflicting of fist blow in the stomach of accused No.1. She also deposed that complainant pushed the accused No.1 backward and gent teachers intervened in the matter. In the statement of DW2, reference of manager sahab is there. He added that complainant stated that he would teach him just now and slapped accused No.1 and gave fist blow on his stomach.
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 36 of 47Statements of DW1 & DW2 are silent about tearing of clothes of accused No.1, whereas DW5 inter alia stated that Surat Singh started abusing and beating and torn off his clothes. Statements of DW1, DW2 & DW5 are silent about the scuffle between Surat Singh & accused No.1 and hurling of abuses by Surat Singh to accused No.1, whereas DW6 inter alia stated that abuses were being hurled by Surat Singh to accused No.1 and accused No.1 was also saying something to Surat Singh and scuffle started. The teachers present in the court i.e. R.K. Sharma, Baru Singh, Sh. Singhal and two more teachers Omvir Singh and Karuna Madam intervened and separated them. It will be pertinent to mention here that statement of DW1 Smt. Karuna Arora is silent about her intervention in the scuffle for the purpose of separating accused No.1 and complainant. Regarding manner of leaving of school by Surat Singh, DW6 stated that after the incident he left the school. DW5 deposed that Surat Singh ran away from there while abusing. DW1 and DW2 deposed that Surat Singh left the school premises while abusing. Thus, it is held that testimonies of above mentioned DWs are not consistent and that creates doubt about the truthfulness of their testimonies.
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 37 of 4754. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that Surat Singh joined Jain Senior Secondary School only on 11.10.2007. The school was closed from 13.10.2007 to 21.10.2007 due to vacations. The alleged incident took place on 11.10.2007, 12.10.2007, 22.10.2007, 23.10.2007 and lastly on 24.10.2007. Thus, complainant practically worked in the school only for four days. His previous service in Rattan Devi Arya Girls Senior Secondary School, Krishna Nagar for about 20 years is not in dispute. It is not convincing that an employee on joining his duty after his transfer, without any reason or provocation will assault the Head of the Institution i.e. Principal, accused No.1 in the present case. All the four accused have failed to explain the reasons for assaulting accused No.1 by the complainant during their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. or in their defence evidence. Conversely, complainant deposed that on the first day and in the first meeting, accused No.1 elicited information from complainant about his caste and uttered unpleasant words discussed here in above and compelled him to do that work which the complainant was not duty bound to do. This reason support the case of complainant and weakens the defence of accused persons.
55. Thirdly, as per MLC, Mark DW3/A-1 and MLC SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 38 of 47 Ex.DW8/A, a small abrasion was noticed on the body of Sh. S.C. Jain on 24.10.2007 at 8:15 a.m. As per Medical Examination Report Ex.PW5/A, abrasions and mild tenderness on the body of Surat Singh were also noticed. DW6 has deposed about scuffle between Surat Singh and Sh. S.C. Jain. In these circumstances the testimony of PW1 complainant even gets support from the testimonies of DWs and particularly DW6 and medical evidence.
56. Fourthly, DW7 proved various documents including written statements submitted to him not only by complainant but also by all accused persons, staff and the persons present in the school at the time of incident and these have been proved on record as Ex.DW7/B-1 to Ex.DW7/B-19. As per statement of Rajender Prasad Sharma Ex.DW7/B dated 12.02.2008, he noticed that shirt of complainant was torn off on 24.10.2007. Statement of Shilpi Jain Ex.DW7/B also contained that clothes of complainant were seen torn off. That has further supported the case that complainant was assaulted and his shirt was torn off.
57. Fifthly, the testimony of complainant that accused No.1 wanted to get rid off the complainant seems SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 39 of 47 to be convincing because the incidents took place on 11th and 12th October, 2007 and 22nd to 24th October, 2007. The complainant has placed on record copy of his joining report as Mark PW2/A and memorandum of termination as Mark PW2/B, copy of order of termination as Mark PW2/C and transfer order as Mark PW2/C. These documents were not disputed by accused persons. Rather in statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.1 stated that subsequently he came to know that management of the school terminated services of complainant on 27.10.2007 on account of beating him. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that facts admitted need not be proved. The fact of terminating services of complainant vide order No.JSS/PER/07/157 dated 27.10.2007 of Honarary Manager, Jain Secondary School, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 can be considered. As per this letter services of complainant were terminated with immediate effect. DW3 Sh. Ranjeet Singh Gupta proved inquiry report as Ex.DW7/A. It is dated 04.03.2008. As mentioned above services of the complainant were terminated on 27.10.2007 without holding an inquiry as articles of charges framed against Surat Singh Ex.DW3/A on 02.12.2008 and inquiry was concluded on 04.03.2008. Thus, termination of services of the complainant on SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 40 of 47 27.10.2007 before conclusion of inquiry on 08.03.2007 is not in accordance with the well established principles of law and natural justice. This further shows that complainant was treated differently in the school. This has further supported the case of complainant.
58. Sixthly, during the arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel highlighted some portion of the cross examination of complainant which was not there in the complaint. On perusal of Ex.PW7/B, which is the statement recorded by ACP during the course of inquiry conducted by him, complainant deposed most of the facts which were deposed in the court but not mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, it is held that there is no substantial improvement in the statement of complainant. It has already been held here in above that the contradictions noticed in the testimonies of complainant PW1 and his witnesses PW2 and PW3 are of minor nature and can be ignored.
59. Seventhly, the testimony of complainant PW1 has proved that he inquired about his caste on 11.10.2007 and having known his caste, he uttered castiest remarks as discussed in paragraph No.14 to 16, which are not being SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 41 of 47 repeated here for the sake of brevity which has shown that accused No.1 insulted and humiliated the complainant in public view in relation to his caste. Therefore, the commission of offence of atrocity as defined u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act stands proved against accused No.1.
60. Eighthly, the evidence on record has also established that accused No.1 assaulted the complainant and caused simple injuries on his person. Therefore, the commission of offence of voluntarily causing hurt as defined u/s 321 and punishable u/s 323 IPC stands proved against accused No.1.
61. In view of the above reasons, discussion and evidence on record and particularly discussed here in above, it is held that prosecution/complainant has successfully proved its/his case against accused No.1 beyond any reasonable suspicion or shadow of doubt that accused No.1 has committed an offence of attrocity on complainant who is a member of scheduled caste as defined u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and offence of voluntarily causing hurt as defined u/s 321 and punishable u/s 323 IPC.
SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 42 of 47Accused Nos.2, 3 & 4, Baru Singh, R.P. Sharma and Kanhaiya Lal Singhal
62. In case of Pishora Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (supra), it was held by the Court that essential ingredients were missing and the facts mentioned in the complaint did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. A report was lodged in that case that on 8.10.2000, complainant who belonged to Balmiki Caste was standing in front of his house, when the accused came there on his scooter and abused him by calling him, "Kutya Chuhria Tenu Dekhanga." The Court granted bail to the accused and observed that admittedly in the complaint filed by the complainant nothing had been stated that at the time of committing the crime accused was aware that complainant belonged to Balmiki caste which had been notified as Scheduled Caste. Even in the statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded, nothing had been stated in that regard. Therefore, prima facie the essential ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act were missing.
63. The principles of law laid down in Pishora Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (supra), are applicable in respect of accused Nos.2 to 4, Baru Singh, R.P. Sharma and SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 43 of 47 Kanhaiya Lal Singhal. Admittedly, these three accused persons were not involved in any incident which had taken place on 11.10.2007, 12.10.2007, 22.10.2007 and 23.10.2007. Neither it is a case of complainant that any of the above three accused inquired about the caste of complainant from the complainant or any one or all of the three were aware about caste of the complainant at the time of happening of incident on 24.10.2007. Admittedly, portion of the alleged incident which took place at 7:30 a.m. on 24.10.2007 did not take place in the presence of these three accused persons. As per statement of complainant PW2, accused No.1 scolded him and caught hold of his collar and brought out him outside the office and gave him kicks and fist blows and uttered castiest remarks. It has been reproduced here in above. These three accused persons allegedly joined later. The scuffle between accused No.1 and complainant has been admitted even by some of the defence witnesses. There is no such admission regarding uttering castiest remarks or assaulting of complainant by any one or all of these three accused persons. Even PW4 did not support prosecution/ complainant case in respect of these three persons. In the statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. all these accused persons expressed their ignorance about the fact that SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 44 of 47 complainant Surat Singh belonged to scheduled caste. In these circumstances, I am of the view that prosecution/complainant could not prove its/his case beyond any reasonable suspicion and doubt that either any one or all these three accused persons committed offence of atrocity on complainant who is a member of scheduled caste as defined u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act or offence of voluntarily causing hurt as defined u/s 321 and punishable u/s 323 IPC.
64. The other reason for this decision is that DW1, DW2 and DW6, inter alia, deposed that accused Nos. 2 to 4 intervened in the matter and separated complainant from accused no. 1. This might have caused misunderstanding in the mind of complaint that accused nos. 2 to 4 also committed offence of atrocities and voluntarily causing hurt on him.
65. This decision also finds support from the Principles of Law laid down in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein it was inter alia held by Apex court that:
"It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 45 of 47 accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt."
66. On analyzing of evidence, I do not find any evidence on record that any of the accused restrained the complainant wrongfully as defined u/s 339 and punishable u/s 341 IPC. Therefore, it is held that prosecution/complainant has failed to prove its case that all or any of the accused committed offence of wrongful restrain of complainant.
Summary of Conclusions
67. In view of the above reasons and conclusions, it is held that prosecution/complainant has successfully proved its/his case against accused No.1 beyond any reasonable suspicion or shadow of doubt that accused No.1 has committed an offence of atrocity on complainant who is a member of scheduled caste as defined u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and offence of voluntarily causing hurt as defined u/s 321 and punishable u/s 323 IPC. Consequently accused no. 1 S.C. Jain is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 323 IPC. He be taken into judicial custody.
68. It is further held that prosecution/complainant SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 46 of 47 could not prove its/his case beyond any reasonable suspicion and doubt that accused no. 2 Baru Singh, accused no. 3 R.P. Sharma and accused no. 4 Kanhaiya Lal Singhal committed offence of atrocity on complainant or offence of voluntarily causing hurt on him. Consequently these three accused nos. 2 to 4, after giving benefit of doubt are acquitted for the offence of atrocity punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and u/s 323 IPC.
69. It is further held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against all the accused persons that they restrained complainant wrongfully. Therefore, all the four accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 341 IPC.
70. However, as per provisions of Section 437A of Cr.P.C., accused nos. 2 to 4 are directed to furnish their personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount for a period of six months.
Announced in the open court on 13.07.2012 (DR. T. R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02,East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC/ST No.16/09 Surat Singh v. S.C. Jain & Ors. Page 47 of 47