Delhi District Court
State vs . Dharambir Etc. on 10 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Dharambir Etc.
FIR No. 166/2010
Police Station: Narnaud (Haryana)
10.3.2011
ORDER ON CHARGE:
This case was received on transfer vide the orders of
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 8.12.2010 with the directions that this
court shall be free to conduct the trial afresh. As many as 103 number
of accused have been charge sheeted out of which five accused are
juveniles facing trial in Juvenile Justice Board Hissar.
The perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated
11.6.2010 Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Hansi on the request of DSP
Hansi Sh. Tula Ram, discharged/ released the accused Jage Ram
(Niab Tehsildar- Hissar), Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer,
Rajesh S/o Om Prakash, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Sukhbir S/o Manphool,
Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Kulwant S/o
Chander Singh and Ram Meher S/o Gulab Singh on the ground that
these persons have no concern with the alleged offence though their
names have been mentioned by the victims and the complainants.
Further, vide a detailed order dated 6.9.2010 the Ld. Addl.
Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge (under SC/ST Act) Hissar,
Haryana directed framing of charges against thirty seven accused
namely Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Sh. Ram
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 1
Mahar, Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh.
Bhim Singh, Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Inder
Singh, Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Jaibir S/o Sh. Mnaphool, Ajit
S/o Sh. Sukhbir, Balwan S/o Sh. Dharmabir, Rajbir @ Nanha S/o
Sh. Mai Chand, Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal, Dharambir S/o Sh. Mai
Chand, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, Kuldeep @
Midda S/o Sh.Balbir, Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o
Sh. Baru Ram, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh.
Sadhu Ram, Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi, Daya Singh S/o Sh. Jeet
Singh, Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan, Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, Jasbir S/o Sh.
Ishwar, Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir, Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jasbir,
Sumit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal, Roshan Lal S/o
Sh. Ram Swarup, Surender S/o Sh. Jagda, Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh.
Mang, Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip, Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh, Rajinder
S/o Sh. Pali, Vijender S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem
and Vinod S/o Sh.Ram Niwas. I may note that at the time the charge
as aforesaid was framed by the Ld. Predecessor as many as sixty other
accused who were in judicial custody but charges could not be framed
as the supplementary charge sheet had not been filed against them.
Further, NBWs were also issued by the Ld. Predecessor against the
remaining accused who was evading arrest, pursuant to which he was
also arrested. Hence, now in addition to the above thirty seven
accused the supplementary charge sheet has also been filed against the
accused Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Monu S/o Sh. Suresh, Amit
S/o Sh. Satyawan, Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Sh. Inder,
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 2
Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Ameer S/o Sh.
Tara, Anil S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela, Charan S/o
Sh. Sadhu Ram, Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara,
Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh.
Hawa Singh, Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan,
Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh,
Kuldeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh.Raja, Manbir
S/o Sh. Jile Singh, Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Rakesh @ Nikle S/o
Sh. Amarlal @ Lala Ram, Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, Pradeep S/o Sh.
Jagbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jaibir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, Pradeep S/o
Sh. Suresh, Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh,
Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir, Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sandeep
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Sandeep S/o Sh.
Rattan Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. Joginder, Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh.
Chander, Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal, Sanjay Handa S/o
Sh. Daya Nand, Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sattu Singh S/o
Sh. Randhir Master, Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, Shamsher S/o Sh.
Rajinder, Sheela @ Sunil S/oSh. Bira, Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh.
Ramesh, Mandeep @ Sonu S/o Sh. Dalbir, Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh.
Rajbir, Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Vikash S/o Sh.
Sunehera @ Sumer Singh, Vipin S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, Jokhar @
Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheoo Chand, Jaibir
S/o Sh. Balbir, Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Rupesh S/o
Sh. Tek Ram, Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Ram, Jagdish @ Jangla
S/o Sh. Lehna, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram, Vinod S/o Sh.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 3
Jagdeep who have also been sent up for trial.
The case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2010 at about
8/8.30 pm some of the accused persons as named in the complaint and
statements of Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram and Pradeep S/o Tarachand,
in an inebriated state reached the Balmiki Basti and on seeing them,
the she dog of the complainant Karan Singh barked at them. The
accused persons took an offence to the barking of the dog and started
throwing stones at it which was objected to by the son of Karan Singh
who was beaten at the hands of the accused persons. The complainant
Karan Singh then intervened in the matter and attempted to settle the
matter after which the group of accused persons then moved away
from there. After some time Ajeet Jat (an employee with the Haryana
Police) who resides near the balimiki basti at Village Mirchpur
approached the complainant Karan Singh and advised him to
apologise or else they will have to face more problems by saying
'zyada nuksaan ho jayega'. The complainant and another person
namely Virbhan went towards the house of Rajendra s/o Pali where all
the boys belonging to the dominant Jaat community had gathered to
settle the matter but instead the complainant and Virbhan were beaten
up by the accused persons as a result of which Karan Singh and
Virbhan received injuries. The injuries on Virbhan were more serious.
Initially both Karan Singh and Virbhan were rushed to the hospital in
Hansi, but since Virbhan had serious injuries, Karan Singh took
Virbhan to the District Hospital in Hisar where he was admitted for a
day. On 20.04.2010 the complainant, in apprehension of the tension
in the village escalating into further violence, got Virbhan discharged
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 4
from the hospital and on the way back to the village stopped at the
police station Narnaund and informed the SHO concerned about the
incidents of 19th (19.4.2010) and also apprised him of the tension that
was prevailing in the village but the SHO (accused Vinod s/o Ram
Niwas) did not pay much heed to the pleas of the complainant and sent
five/ six Constables to handle the matter inspite of clear information
from the complainant that the situation in the village is turning volatile
and there is a lot of tension due to the instance of violence at the
behest of the accused persons. Constables sent by the SHO attempted
to settle the tension, but to no avail and in the morning of 21.04.2010,
there was tension in the Balmiki Basti due to which the SHO
Narnaund whose presence is borne out by the records and by the
statements of both the victim community and the dominant
community, called a meeting of the Jaat community in the Jaat
Chaupal and then called a meeting of the Balmiki community in the
Balmiki chaupal. As per the allegations the men of the Balmiki
community gathered in the balmiki chaupal and most persons like
women, children and old persons stepped out to see what was going
on, when the accused before this court in furtherance of this common
intention and in pursuance of the common design duly armed with
kerosene, petrol in bottles along with lathis, jhelies and stones
surrounded the balmiki basti and gave out cries for attacking the
balimiki basti shouting "in saale churon ke gharon ko jhala do, inki
bacchon ko gharon main hi zinda jhala do, inke ghar tod do aur
inka gaon se khatma kar do". This according to the prosecution was
done with the backing and under the protection of the SHO (accused
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 5
Vinod S/o Ram Niwas).
On account of the aforesaid one Tara Chand and his
daughter Suman who was handicapped were burnt badly and Suman
died at the house itself while Tara Chand in order to save his life
rushed to the house of Diwan Singh. He was taken to Civil Hospital,
Hisar in Government Gypsy by his son Amar Lal and Nephew Ashok
in a burnt condition where the police recorded his statement (Dying
Declaration). In the village as many as 51 persons all belonging dalit
community received injuries, 18 properties belonging to dalits were
burnt and there was large scale rioting and looting of properties of
dalits (list along with the valuation placed on record along with the
charge sheet).
I have heard detail arguments on charge advanced by the
counsels appearing on behalf of the accused, complainants/ victims
and the Special Public Prosecutors appointed by GNCT of Delhi and
State of Haryana. Written memorandum of arguments on the point of
charge have also been filed along with the authorities/ judgments duly
relied upon by the counsels which I have duly perused.
Sh. S.C. Phogat, Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused Manbir S/o Jile Singh and Rakesh S/o Amarlal has
vehemently argued that the accused Manbir is serving in the
Veterinary Department and was posted in Government Veterinary
Hospital at village Mirchpur and on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2010
he was on the field for FMD vaccination along with a 4th class
employee for the whole day. He has also argued that the accused
Rakesh is a student of 2nd Year of ITI Hissar and was present in Hissar
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 6
in his class from 10:30 am to 5:00 pm in respect of which he has also
placed on record the copy of the attendance sheet. Ld. counsel has
also placed on record the reply to the RTI certifying that Rakesh S/o
Amar Lal was undergoing training for Tool and Dye Maker, 2nd Year,
ITI Hissar.
Sh. B.S. Rana, Sh. Arun Rathi, Sh. R.S. Malik, Sh.
Dharamraj Ohlan and Sh. Pradeep Hooda Advocates appearing on
behalf of the accused persons have also argued that firstly the
allegations made against all the accused are general and non specific.
Secondly that only those accused who had made specific
objectionable utterances can be booked under the Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thirdly that
the said utterances were made at a public place, in a public view does
not stand established. Fourthly that the provisions of Section 120-B
Indian Penal Code are not attracted in as much as there was no prior
meeting of mind and the quarrel if any which took place was at the
spur of the moment. Fifthly that no offence under Section 395 Indian
Penal Code is made out and it is only the provisions of Section 380
IPC which can be attracted against the persons who have been
specifically named in FIR as indulging in the incident dated
21.4.2010. Sixthly that the medical examination of the injured are
after much delay of nine days of the incident i.e. 30.4.2010 or even
more which was got done for ulterior motives. Lastly that the
membership of unlawful assembly does not stand established and the
material on record is not sufficient to raise grave suspicion so as to
warranting framing of charges against the accused persons.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 7
Ld. Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State and the counsels for the complainants have on the other hand
placed their reliance on the statements of various victims and also on
the MLCs of the victims showing the existence of injuries on their
bodies. They have also relied upon the report showing the existence
destruction of property in the fire on account of the which houses of
many of the victims were completely destroyed.
I have considered the rival contentions and the various
judgments and before proceeding to primafacie analyse the facts as
they exist on record, I briefly discuss the law relating to the framing of
charge as culled out from the judgments/ authorities replied upon by
the parties duly placed before this court by the Ld. Counsels.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.S. Malik
Vs. A.R. Antulay AIR 1986 has observed after considering the
provisions of Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Code broadly speaking
the central standard was laid that in case trial court was satisfied that
primafacie case was made out, charge has to be framed. It has been
held as under:
"The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the
prosecution proposed to adduce are not to be meticulously
judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to
be applied finally, is not exactly to be applied. At this stage,
even a very strong suspicion founded upon the materials
before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive
opinion as to existence of factual ingredients constituting the
offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the
accused in respect of the commission of that offence"
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 8
In the case of B.N. Rao Vs. State reported in 1997 JCC
359 it has been specifically held that at the stage of framing of charge
the evidence has not been examined minutely and the charge can be
framed even if there is suspicion. Further in the case of Mathura
Dass & Ors. Vs. State reported in DCLR 2003 (1) Delhi 694 it has
been been held that :
".........the existence of primafacie case may be
found even on the basis of strong suspicion against
an accused....... The assessment, evaluation and
weighing of the prosecution evidence is a criminal
case at the final stage is on entirely different footing
than it is at the stage of framing of charge........ At
the final stage, if two views are possible, one which
favours accused has to be accepted unlike at the
stage of framing of charges, where the view
favourable to prosecution has to be accepted......."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
Vs. Prafulla reported as 1979 SC 366 AIR held that :
"............ At the time of framing of charges, the court
has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against accused has been made
out........."
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 9
Further in the same judgment the hon'ble High Court has
observed that:
".........When the material placed before the Court
discloses great suspicion against the accused, the
Court will be justified in framing charge. If two
views are equally possible and the evidence
produced gives rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, the judge will be
fully within his right to discharge the
accused.........."
It was also observed that :
".........At the time of framing of charge, the Court
cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece
of the prosecution but is to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total aspect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
Court and any basic infirmities in the case and so
on........"
However, a word of caution was added in this judgment
that the judge should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons
of the matter and weigh the evidence is if he was conducting a trial.
Again in the case of State of Maharashtra & ors. Vs.
Som Nath Thapa & Ors, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 659 the three
Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that :
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 10
".......If on the basis of materials on record, a Court
comes to the conclusion that commission of the
offence is a probable consequence, a case for
framing of charge exists. To put it differently if the
Court were to think that the accused might have
committed the offence, it can frame the charge,
though for conviction the conclusion is required to
be that the accused has committed the offence. It is
apparent that at the stage of framing of charge,
probative value of the materials on record cannot
be gone into; the materials brought on record by the
prosecution has to be accepted as true at that
stage." (Para 32)-----.
Later in the case of State Vs. S. Bangarappa reported in
2001 (1) CC Cases SC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that :
"........ Time and again this Court has pointed out
that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court
should not enter upon a process of evaluating the
evidence by deciding its worthy or credibility. The
limited exercise during that stage is to find out
whether the materials offered by the prosecution to
be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the Court
to proceed further ........."
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 11
Again in the year 2001 the hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal had observed
that :
"......... If trial Court decides to frame charge there
is no legal requirement that the trial Court should
pass an order specifying the reasons as to why it
opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima
facie order that the trial judge has formed the
opinion after considering the report and the
documents and after hearing both decides that there
is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence. It was held that a magistrate
is required to record his reasons for discharging the
accused but there is no such requirement if he forms
the opinion that there is ground for presuming that
accused had committed offence. In such a situation
the magistrate is only required to frame a charge in
writing against the accused."
Also in Para 12 the Hon'ble Court had observed that :
"........ If there is no legal requirement that the trial
Court should write an order showing the reasons
for framing of charge, why should the already
burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such
an extra work. Time has reached to adopt all
possible measures to expedite the Court procedures
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 12
and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks
causing avoidable delays. If a magistrate is to write
detailed orders at different stage merely because the
counsel would address arguments at all stage, the
snail pace progress of proceedings in trial Court
would further be slowed down."
Similar opinion was also expressed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rukmani Narvekar Vs. Vijaya
Satardekar and Others reported in 2008(4) JCC 2879 and also in
the case of Subhadra Vs. State reported as 1996 JCC 665.
Also in the case of Ms. Soma Chakravarty Vs. State
(Through CBI) reported in 2006 (1) JCC 152 (DHC) it has been held
that :
"It is settled law that at the time of framing of
charge, the Court is not required to make a roving
enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh evidence as if it is conducting a trial. Court
is not required to make appraisal of evidence
meticulously at this stage and there the material
placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been property
explained and indicate the involvement of the
accused then it is sufficient to frame the charge."
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 13
Further, in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of
Maharastra reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 6 it has been observed that:
".........It is a settled preposition of law that the judge
while considering the question of framing of charge
in the said Section has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a primaface case against
the accused has been made out, where the material
placed before the court disclose grave suspension of
the accused which has not been properly explained,
the court will be fully justified in framing a charge
and proceeding with the trial by and large............."
While during the trial if two views are equally
possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him wile giving rise to such
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused
he will be fully justified to discharge the
accused........."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also in the case of State of
Karnatka Vs. L. Muniswamy reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 held
that:
"........At the stage of framing of charge the court has
to apply its mind to the question where or not there is
any ground for presuming the commission of of the
offence by the accused...."
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 14
It was held that since the framing of charge affected a
person's liberty substantially, hence need for proper consideration of
material warranting such order was emphasized.
Further in the case of L.K. Advani Vs. CBI reported in
1997 Crl. L. J. 2559 it has been held that:
"..............Charge can be framed by the court against
the accused if the material placed before it raises a
strong suspicion that the accused has committed an
offence. In other words, the court would be justified
in framing the charges against the accused if the
prosecution has sown the seed in the form of the
incriminating material which has got the potential to
develop itself into a full-fledged tree of conviction
later on.........".
Similar views have also been echoed by various courts in
the following cases:
1. State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC
2018.
2. Chonampara Chellapan Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR
1979 SC 1761.
3. Sikander Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2010 SC
3580.
4. D.P. Vats Vs. State & Others reported in 2002 (VI) AD
(DELHI) 303.
5. Surender Kumar Vs. State reported in 1997 JCC 45 Delhi.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 15
Applying these settled principles of law to the facts of the
present case, it is evident that tension had been seething between the
dominant community and the victims belonging to the Balmiki
community for sometime in the area. The first incident had taken
place on 19.4.2010 in respect of which a separate charge sheet is
reported to have been filed before the competent court at Hissar where
it is pending trial. The narration of the said incident dated 19.4.2010
also find a mention in the present charge sheet in order to primafacie
establish the aspect of the motive for the offence, prior meeting of
mind and common object. In the unfortunate incident which took
place on 21.4.2010, as many as two persons lost their lives and about
fifty one persons allegedly suffered injuries. Further, the said incident
was reportedly witnessed by as many as eighty six (public persons
who are eye witnesses) many of whom had immediately joined the
investigations on 21.4.2010. Having suffered injuries and also loss of
property, some of these witnesses had reportedly moved out of the
village on account of the alleged terror and their statements were
recorded later. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rakesh Bajaj Vs. State & Others reported in
1999 Cri. LJ 1833 are very clear. It has been observed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that merely because the names of some of the accused do
not find a mention in the FIR or the details have been mentioned at a
later stage cannot be a ground to discharge the accused at this stage.
In this regard, I may note the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors.v Tapan Kumar
Singh, reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1305, Supreme Court has
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 16
observed that ".......it is well settled that a first information report is
not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating
to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the
commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the
victim or his assailant......... At this stage it is also not necessary for
him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information.........
The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full
details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is
named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the
allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the
question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding
these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to
investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can....."
The reason for the aforesaid view is that generally FIR's are
registered immediately and promptly after an offence is committed
and the informant has no cooling period to frame the complaint or
ponder over its language. But where a FIR is lodged with a cooling
period and the complainant has taken the help of a legal expert,
subsequent additions of facts may become relevant. In the present
case there are allegations that the Administration did not seriously
investigate the case and the allegations seriously at the initial stages
and it was only after the intervention of the higher authorities when
the atrocities were widely highlighted, that the seriousness crept into
the investigations.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 17
Coming now to the allegations against the various accused
individually. For the sake of brevity and clarity the said allegations
against the various accused are being discussed as under in a tabulated
form (along with the name of the witnesses making such allegations):
Sr. Name of Father Date of Date of Name of the Allegations
No. accused Name arrest filing the witness against the
charge making accused
sheet allegations
1 Dharambir Tara 22.4.2010 16.10.2010 Karambir Rioting,
Chand S/oBalbir damage to
Sushil s/o Surta property by
Kamla W/o Tara fire, causing
Chand death and
Baniya S/o Surta injuries
Pradeep S/oTara
Chand
Jagpal S/o Bir
Singh
2 Pawan Ram 22.4.2010 - do - Satyawan S/o Rioting,
Mahar Bhaleram damage to
Baniya S/o Surta property by
Pradeep S/o fire, causing
Tarachand death and
Jaswant S/o injuries
Jagbir
3 Karambir Tara 22.4.2010 - do - Manoj S/o Rioting,
Chand Mahender damage to
Sanjay S/o property by
Gulab fire, causing
Kamla W/o Tara death and
Chand injuries
Pradeeo w/o
Tarachand
Satyawan s/o
Roshan
4 Joginder Bhim 22.4.2010 - do - Manoj S/o Rioting,
@ Jogar Singh Mahender damage to
Sanjay s/o Bani property by
Singh fire, causing
Mahajan s/o injuries
Satpal
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 18
5 Dalbir Dalip 22.4.2010 - do - Rajesh s/o Rioting,
Singh Bhambu damage to
Satyawan s/o property by
Roshan fire, causing
Susheel s/o Surta injuries
Sunita w/o Surta
Mahajan s/o
Satpal
Chander s/o
Laxman
6 Balwan Inder 22.4.2010 - do - Sube Singh s/o Mischief by
Singh Bhura Ram fire.
Chander s/o
Laxman
7 Satyawan Tara 22.4.2010 - do - Sube Singh s/o Mischief by
Chand Bhura Ram fire.
Bijender s/o
Surta
Jaibir Mnaphool 22.4.2010 - do - Rajesh s/o Damage to
8 Bhambhu the property
Biender s/o Surta and mischief
by fire.
9 Ajit Sukhbir 22.4.2010 - do - Sube Singh s/o Damage to
Bhuraram the property
Baniya s/o Surta and mischief
Bani Singh s/o by fire.
Bhaleram
10 Balwan Dharm 22.4.2010 - do - Nawab s/o Damage to
Singh Laxman the property.
Rajesh s/o
Shambhu
11 Rajbir @ Mai 22.4.2010 - do - Sanjay s/o Bani Rioting,
Nanha Chand Singh damage to
Bijender s/o property by
Surta fire, causing
Sanjay s/o Gulab injuries
Vicky s/o Dhup
Singh
Mahajan s/o
Satpal
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 19
12 Viren Yashpal 23.4.2010 - do - Kamla w/o Tara Mischief by
Chand fire
Pradeep s/o Tara
Chand
13 Dharambir Mai 30.4.2010 - do - Pawan s/o Jagat Rioting,
Chand Singh damage to
Sanjay s/o Satpal property by
Vicky s/o Dhup fire, causing
Singh death and
Dilbagh s/o Sube injuries
Singh
Dharambir s/o
Chandgi
Dharambir s/o
Chatar Singh
14 Deepak @ Krishan 30.4.2010 - do - Karambir s/o Rioting,
Sonu @ Pappu Balbir damage to
Dharambir s/o property by
Chatar Singh fire, causing
Vicky s/o Dhup death and
Singh injuries
15 Kuldeep Balbir 14.5.2010 - do - Praveen s/o Surat Damage to
@Midda Singh the property
16 Rajinder Balu 14.5.2010 - do - Praveen s/o Surat Rioting,
Singh damage to
Sanjay s/o Satpal property by
fire
17 Jagdish @ Baru Ram 14.5.2010 - do - Praveen s/o Surat Rioting,
Hathi Singh damage to
Sanjay s/o Bani property by
Singh fire
18 Suresh Balbir 14.5.2010 - do - Ram Niwas s/o Rioting,
Kumar Rajmal damage to
Manoj s/o property by
Mahender fire
Pradeep s/o
Tarachand
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 20
19 Rajinder Sadhu 14.5.2010 - do - Jaswant s/o Rioting,
Kr. Ram Jagbir damage to
Dilbagh S/o Sube property by
Singh fire
Chander s/o
Laxman
Manoj s/o
Mahender
20 Ramphal Prithvi 14.5.2010 - do - Sanjay s/o Gulab Rioting,
Bijender s/o damage to
Surta property of
Vicky s/o Dhup Dhup Singh
Singh by fire and
Amarlal s/o Tara caused
Gulab s/o Jailal injuries to
Dhup Singh
21 Daya Jeet Singh 14.5.2010 - do - Ramniwas s/o Rioting,
Singh Inder Singh damage to
Nawab s/o property,
Laxman pouring
Sanjay s/o Bani kerosene oil
Singh
22 Pardeep Balwan 15.5.2010 - do - Satyawan s/o Rioting,
Bhaleram damage to
Ramphal s/o property by
Rajmal fire
23 Rishi Satbir 16.5.2010 - do - Dilbagh s/o Rioting,
Gulab damage to
Rajender s/o property by
Mahender fire, causing
Sunita w/o Surta death and
Sanjay s/o Satpal injuries
Binder s/o Ram
Kumar
Satyawan s/o
Bhaleram
Chander s/o
Laxman
Ramphal s/o
Rajmal
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 21
DhupSingh s/o
Rattan
Amar s/o Tara
Chand
Suresh s/o Tara
Chand
24 Jasbir Ishwar 16.5.2010 - do - Ramniwas s/o Rioting,
Rajmal damage to
property
25 Karampal Satbir 16.5.2010 - do - Sanjay s/o Bani Rioting,
Singh damage to
Ramniwas s/o property by
Inder fire, causing
Sanjay s/o Gulab death and
Dhup Singh s/o injuries
Rattan
Amar s/o Tara
Chand
26 Sunil @ Jasbir 17.5.2010 - do - Nawab s/o Rioting,
Sonu Laxman damage to
Karambir s/o property
Balbir
27 Sumit Satyawan 17.5.2010 - do - Chander s/o Rioting,
Laxman damage to
Ramniwas s/o property by
Inder fire, causing
Pawan s/o Jagat death and
Suresh s/o injuries
Chander
Vicky s/o Dhup
Singh
Manoj s/o
Mahender
28 Pardeep Ramphal 22.4.2010 01/07/10 Bani Singh s/o Rioting,
Bhaleram damage to
Chander s/o property by
Laxman fire, causing
Sanjay s/o death and
Laxman injuries
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 22
29 Roshan Ram 22.4.2010 - do - Satyawan s/o Damage to
Lal Swarup Roshan the property
Bani Singh s/o
Bhaleram
Mahajan s/o
Satpal
Sushil s/o Surta
30 Surender Jagdev 22.4.2010 - do - Ramniwas s/o Rioting,
Rajmal damage to
Pardeep s/o property by
Tarachand fire, causing
Bijender s/o death and
Surta injuries
Rajesh s/o
Bhambu
DhupSingh s/o
Rattan
31 Hoshiar Mangal 22.4.2010 - do - Rajmal s/o Poker Damage to
Singh the property
32 Ajit Dalip 22.4.2010 - do - Vijender s/o Rioting,
Sutar Singh damage to
Mahajan s/o property by
Satpal fire, causing
JaiSingh s/o injuries
Sudhan
Sube Singh s/o
Bhura
33 Rajinder Dhup 22.4.2010 - do - Jai Singh s/o Rioting,
Singh Sudhan damage to
Pradeep s/o Tara property by
Chand fire, causing
Sube Singh s/o death and
Bhura injuries
Satpal s/o Pratap
34 Rajinder Pali 22.4.2010 - do - Satyewan s/o Rioting,
Bhaleram damage to
Ramniwas s/o property by
Rajmal fire, causing
Ramphal s/o death and
Rajmal injuries
Kamla w/o Tara
Chand
Pradeep s/o Tara
Chand
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 23
Dhup Singh s/o
Rattan
Amal s/o Surta
Gulab s/o Jailal
Pradeep s/o
Tarachand
Mahender s/o
Amar Singh
Rajender s/o
Mahender
Dilbagh s/o
Gulab
Sunita w/o Surta
Rajkumar s/o
Kapoora
Vicky s/o Dhup
Singh
Amar s/o Tara
Chand
5 Vijender Hoshiar 22.4.2010 - do - SubeSingh s/o Rioting,
Singh Bhuaram damage to
Rajmal s/o Poker property by
Satpal s/o Pratap fire
Satyawan s/o
Roshan
36 Dinesh Prem 23.4.2010 - do - Dharmbir s/o Damage to
Chatar Singh the property
37 Vinod Ram 01/05/10 29.7.2010 Virbhan s/o Criminal
Kumar Niwas Maan Singh conspiracy
Pradeep s/o Tara for the
Chand offences
Ashok s/o Maha committed
Singh and willful
Suresh s/o negligence of
Ramesh Kumar duties
Amar s/o Tara required to be
Chand performed by
Karan Singh s/o him
Tekram
38 Jokhar @ Inder 29.7.2010 18.10.2010 Jagpal s/o Inder Damage to
Joginder Singh Ramniwas s/o the property
Rajmal and mischief
Vicky s/o Dhup by fire.
Singh
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 24
39 Rajpal Sheoo 29.7.2010 - do - Sanjay s/o Satpal Rioting,
Chand Jagpal s/o Bir damage to
Singh property by
Suresh s/o fire, set on
Chander fire the
Vicky s/o Dhup motorcycle
Singh
Manoj s/o
Mahender
40 Jaibir Balbir 29.7.2010 - do - Suresh s/o Poured
Chander kerosene oil
41 Ramesh Dalip 01/08/10 - do - Jagpal s/o Bir Rioting,
@ Mahesh Singh Singh damage to
property by
fire, causing
death and
injuries
42 Rupesh Tek 01/08/10 - do - Ramphal s/o Rioting,
Chand Rajmal damage to
Dharambir s/o property by
Chandgi fire
Sanjay s/o Gulab
Jagpal s/o Bir
Singh
Dhup Singh S/o
Rattan
Pawan s/o Jagat
Singh
43 Babal @ Tek 01/08/10 - do - Manoj s/o Rioting,
Langra Chand Mahender damage to
Sanjay s/o Bani property by
Singh fire
Vicky s/o Dhup
Singh
Aman s/o Surta
44 Jagdish @ Laxman 12/08/10 - do - Aman s/o Surta Rioting
Jangla
45 Pawan @ Sewa Ram 24.8.2010 - do - Vicky s/o Dhup Caused
Rinku Singh damage to the
Satbir s/o property and
Bhaleram injuries by
pelting stones
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 25
46 Balwan Jeela 31.8.2010 - do - Ashok s/o Maha Caused
Singh injuries by
pelting
stones.
47 Pradeep Suresh 01/09/10 - do - Suresh s/o Pouring oil,
Chander damage to the
Vicky s/o Dhup property and
Singh caused
Abhishek s/o injuries by
Sanjay pelting
stones.
48 Satish @ Randhir 01/09/10 - do - Sunita w/o Satbir Caused
Sattu Master injuries by
pelting stones
49 Pawan Hoshiar 01/09/10 - do - Abhishek s/o Caused
Singh Sanjay injuries by
pelting stones
50 Jora Singh Balwan 02/09/10 - do - Aman s/o Surta Rioting
51 Vedpal Dayanand 02/09/10 - do - Amar s/o Tara Provided
Chand shelter to
accused
Sanjay @
Handa
52 Monu Suresh 03/09/10 - do - Rajender s/o Rioting,
Mahender pouring
Dharambir s/o kerosene oil
Chandgi and damage
Sunita s/o Surta to property
Jagpal s/o Bir
Singh
Amar s/o Tara
Cahnd
Sanjay s/o Bani
Singh
Suresh s/o
Chander
Manan s/o Surta
53 Jogal Hawa 03/09/10 02/11/10 Aman s/o Surta Damage to
Singh the property
54 Kuldeep Om 03/09/10 - do - Suresh s/o Caused
Prakash Chander injuries by
Angoori w/o pelting stones
Dalip
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 26
55 Nasib Prem 03/09/10 - do - Ishra w/o Pasha Caused
Singh injuries by
pelting stones
56 Pradeep Jaibir 03/09/10 - do - Vicky s/o Dhup Caused
Singh injuries by
Krishna w/o pelting stones
Raghbir and damaged
the property.
57 Pradeep Satbir 03/09/10 - do - Krishna w/o Caused
Raghbir injuries by
pelting stones
58 Shamsher Rajender 03/09/10 - do - Sunita w/o Satbir Caused
injuries by
pelting stones
59 Sonu Ramesh 03/09/10 - do - Satbir s/o Caused
Bhaleram injuries by
pelting stones
60 Jitender Satbir 03/09/10 - do - Aman s/o Surta Rioting
61 Amit Satyawan 03/09/10 - do - Dilbagh s/o Sube Rioting and
Singh caused
Rampal s/o damage to the
Rajmal property
Dharambir s/o
Chatar Singh
Karan Singh s/o
Tek Ram
Baniya s/o Surta
Gulab Singh s/o
Jailal
Rajesh S/o
Shambhu
Bindra s/o Raj
Kumar
Rajmal s/o Pokar
Satyawan s/o
Roshan
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 27
Jaswant S/o
Jaibir
Sajjana s/o Ram
Swaroop
Ajmer s/o Balbir
Sanjay s/o Satpal
Satyawan S/o
BhaleSingh
Dilbagh s/o
Gulab Singh
62 Ved Karan 03/09/10 - do - Satbir s/o Caused
Prakash @ Singh Bhaleram injuries by
Bedu pelting stones
63 Ramesh Karan 03/09/10 - do - Ramniwas s/o Pour oil and
Singh Rajmal mischief by
Satyawan s/o fire
Bhaleram
Dilbagh s/o Sube
Singh
Suresh s/o
Chander
64 Vikash Sunehra 03/09/10 - do - Chandrapathi w/o Caused
Sajjana injuries by
pelting stones
65 Charan Sadhu 03/09/10 - do - Ashok S/o Maha Caused
Singh Ram Singh injuries by
pelting stones
66 Kala Satyawan 03/09/10 - do - Aman s/o Surta Rioting
67 Parveen Jagdev 03/09/10 - do - Abhishek s/o Caused
Sanjay injuries by
pelting stones
68 Pawan Rajbir 03/09/10 - do - Abhishek s/o Caused
Sanjay injuries by
pelting stones
69 Sandeep Raj 03/09/10 - do - Pooja d/o Surta Caused
Kumar injuries by
pelting stones
70 Sandeep Ram 03/09/10 - do - Sunita d/o Ved Caused
Swarup injuries by
pelting stones
71 Sandeep Rattan 03/09/10 - do - Sunita d/o Ved Damage to
Singh the property
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 28
72 Satyawan Karan 03/09/10 - do - Manoj s/o Mischief by
@ Satta Singh Mahender fire and
Shanti w/o caused
Jugtiram injuries by
pelting stones
73 Dalbir Tara 04/09/10 - do - Ashok s/o Maha Caused
Singh injuries by
pelting stones
74 Sheela Bera 04/09/10 - do - Sunita w/o Satbir Caused
injuries by
pelting stones
75 Sunil Daya 04/09/10 - do - Suresh s/o Caused
Nand Chander damage to the
Vicky s/o Dhup property and
Singh pour kerosene
Aman s/o Surta oil
76 Rajesh Dhupa 04/09/10 - do - Pradeep s/o Mischief by
Tarachand fire
77 Sanjay Amar Lal 04/09/10 - do - Shanti w/o Jugti Caused
Ram injuries by
pelting
stones.
78 Manbir Zile Singh 04/09/10 - do - Ishra w/o Pasha Caused
injuries by
pelting
stones.
79 Pardeep Jagbir 04/09/10 - do - Krishna w/o Caused
Raghbir injuries by
pelting stones
80 Vinod Jagde 04/09/10 - do - Chanderpati w/o Caused
Sajjana injuries by
pelting stones
81 Vipin Joginder 04/09/10 - do - Chanderpati w/o Caused
Sajjana injuries by
pelting stones
82 Pappu Pyare Lal 04/09/10 - do - Krishna w/o Caused
Raghbir injuries by
pelting stones
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 29
83 Nakli Lala 04/09/10 - do - Ishra w/o Pasha Caused
injuries by
pelting
stones.
84 Tina Rajbir 04/09/10 - do - Satbir s/o Caused
Bhaleram injuries by
pelting stones
85 Sandeep Mohinder 04/09/10 - do - Pooja d/o Surta Caused
injuries by
pelting stones
86 Sandeep Joginder 04/09/10 - do - Kela w/o Jaibir Caused
injuries by
pelting
stones.
87 Satyawan Rajender 05/09/10 - do - Vickey s/o Dhup Damage to
Singh the property,
poured
kerosene oil
and caused
injuries by
pelting
stones.
88 Baljeet Inder 05/09/10 - do - Pradeep s/o Tara Poured
Sanjay s/o Gulab kerosene oil,
Rajkumar s/o caused
Kapoora injures and
Kamla w/o Tara mischief by
Chand fire.
89 Amir Tara 05/09/10 - do - Sandeep s/o Caused
Chand Satpal injuries by
pelting stones
90 Anil Prem 05/09/10 - do - Sandeep S/o Rioting
Satpal
91 Anup Dharma 05/09/10 - do - Sandeep s/o Rioting
Satpal
92 Dhola Satyawan 05/09/10 - do - Aman s/o Surta Rioting
93 Krishan Karan 05/09/10 - do - Angoori w/o Caused
Singh Dalip injuries by
pelting
stones.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 30
94 Lellu @ Raja 05/09/10 - do - Suresh s/o Poured
Jasbir Cahnder kerosene oil
Angoori d/o and caused
Dalip injuries by
pelting
stones.
95 Sandeep Chander 05/09/10 - do - Vicky s/o Dhup Damage to
Fauzi Singh the property,
Shanti w/o poured oil
Jugtiram and caused
injuries by
pelting stones
96 Kulwinder Ram 06/09/10 - do - Rajender s/o Poured
Meher Mahender kerosene oil
Ramphal s/o and mischief
Rajmal by fire.
Dharambir s/o
Chandgiram
Ramniwas s/o
Rajmal
Amar s/o
Tarachand
Suresh s/o Tara
Chand
Pradeep s/o Tara
Chand
97 Sonu @ Dalbir 06/09/10 - do - Vicky s/o Dhup Damage to
Mandeep Singh the property
Satbir s/o and caused
Bhaleram injuries by
pelting
stones.
98 Sanjay @ Daya 09/09/10 - do - Vicky s/o Dhup Caused
Handa Nand Singh injuries by
Praveen s/o pelting
Jagpal stones.
Shanti w/o
Jugtiram
In addition to the aforesaid material placed before this
court in the charge sheet, the MLC of the victims are also present on
record which I have duly perused most of which show the presence of
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 31
injuries caused to them by blunt objects. The postmortem report of
the deceased Tara Chand and his daughter Suman also show that they
had expired on account of burn injuries connected with the incident.
Further, the report regarding the damage of immovable properties and
theft of movables has also been placed perused by me.
The reports have been received from the DSP in respect of
the certificates filed by the accused Rakesh S/o Amar Lal and Manbir
S/o Zile Singh showing their presence elsewhere at the time of the
incident. It is evident from the report that primafacie the certificate
which is the basis of reliance by the accused Rakesh S/o Amar Lal is
primafacie based upon attendance record where his presence has been
allegedly shown by putting a fluid on the attendance register. Further,
in so far as the attendance sheet of the accused Manbir s/o Zile Singh
is concerned, it is an official junior to him i.e. the Peon who has
certified his presence but it is evident that his presence at the village
primafacie stand established though may be in a different capacity. I
may add that under the given circumstances, it shall be improper for
this court to form any definite opinion on the basis of the aforesaid
documents which are in the nature of defence of alibi raised by the
accused which they shall be at liberty to prove/ establish at
appropriate stage.
In so far as the accused Kuldeep s/o Balbir and Jaibir s/o
Balbir are concerned, it has been submitted by the special Public
Prosecutor for the State that there is a typographical/ clerical error in
the name and the name Balbir which sounds phonetically similar to
Dalbir. I have considered the submissions and I find merit in the same
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 32
since even otherwise it is not the case of the accused that Dalbir is
some other person living in the same village having two sons with the
same names as theirs.
I also find no merit in the argument raised by the Ld.
Defence counsels that the provisions of Section 120-B and Sections
395, 397 and 380 Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. In this
regard I may observe that the incident dated 21.4.2010 was not an
independent incident but was arising out of and stretching from the
earlier dispute dated 19.4.2010. The incidents have to be taken and
read together and not in isolation. Once the constitution of the
unlawful assembly the common object of which is primafacie evident,
then each and every member of such unlawful assembly would be
jointly and collectively liable for any act done by any other member of
such an assembly.
I may further observe that the context of the caste cannot
be lost sight of in the present case and it is writ large that the accused
belonging to dominant caste (Jaat community) were the aggressors
and the victims belonging to the dalit community were the sufferers.
The entire incident took place within the full public view of the
residents of the village and hence the provisions of the Scheduled
Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would
apply.
At this stage of framing of charge this court is not required
to meticulously go into the material placed on record and to assess,
evaluate and weight the prosecution evidence in a criminal case as it is
done at the final stage. It is not open for this court to sift and weigh
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 33
the evidence as if it is conducting a mini trial and charge can be
framed on the basis of grave suspicion and the evidential value of the
statement recorded during the course of investigations is required to be
seen at the time of appropriate trial. This is immaterial whether the
case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence and this court is only
require to see if primafacie there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. In case if two views are possible the view which
favours the accused is required to be accepted at this stage.
It is a settled law that at this stage of framing of charge the
court is only required to consider whether primafacie there exists
sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. A roving and fishing
inquiry is impermissible. It is sufficient if the prosecution is able to
show primafacie the commission of offence and the involvement of
the charged person.
In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that
primafacie there is sufficient material on record to frame charges
under Sections 120-B, 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 395, 397, 427,
435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code and additional charge
under Section 3 (1) (x), (xv) , 3 (2) (iii), (iv) (v) of the Scheduled
Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against
the accused Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Sh. Ram
Mahar, Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh.
Bhim Singh, Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh,
Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Jaibir S/o Sh. Mnaphool, Ajit S/o Sh.
Sukhbir, Balwan S/o Sh. Dharmabir, Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai
Chand, Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal, Dharambir S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Deepak
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 34
@ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh.Balbir,
Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram, Suresh
Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Ramphal S/o
Sh. Prithvi, Daya Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh, Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan,
Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar, Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir,
Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jasbir, Sumit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Pardeep S/o Sh.
Ramphal, Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Surender S/o Sh. Jagda,
Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mang, Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip, Rajinder S/o Sh.
Dhup Singh, Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali, Vijender S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh,
Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem, Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Monu S/o Sh.
Suresh, Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o
Sh. Inder, Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Ameer
S/o Sh. Tara, Anil S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela, Charan
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara,
Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh.
Hawa Singh, Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan,
Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh,
Kuldeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh.Raja, Manbir S/o
Sh. Jile Singh, Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Rakesh @ Nikle S/o Sh.
Amarlal @ Lala Ram, Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir,
Pradeep S/o Sh. Jaibir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, Pradeep S/o Sh.
Suresh, Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Pawan
S/o Sh. Rajbir, Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj
Kumar, Sandeep S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh,
Sandeep S/o Sh. Joginder, Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander,
Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal, Sanjay Handa S/o Sh. Daya
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 35
Nand, Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sattu Singh S/o Sh. Randhir
Master, Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, Shamsher S/o Sh. Rajinder,
Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira, Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh, Mandeep
@ Sonu S/o Sh.Dalbir, Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir, Vedpal @
Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehera @ Sumer Singh,
Vipin S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh,
Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheoo Chand, Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir, Ramesh @ Mahesh
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Rupesh S/o Sh. Tek Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o
Sh. Tek Chand, Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lakshman, Pawan @ Tinku
S/o Sh. Sewa Ram and Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep.
Further, in so far as the accused Vinod S/o Ram Niwas is
concerned, primafacie charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 147, 148,
149, 323, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out against him.
In so far as the accused Vedpal S/o Dayanand is
concerned the only allegations against him are of harbouring/
concealing the accused Sanjay @ Handa with the intention of
preventing him from being apprehended. Therefore, primafacie I find
sufficient material on record to frame charge under Section 216 Indian
Penal Code against him.
Case be listed for framing of charges against the accused
on 11.3.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 10.3.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 36
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II(NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Dharambir Etc.
FIR No. 166/10
PS Narnaud
10.3.2011
ORDER:
This application has been filed on behalf of approximately seventy witnesses of the community of the victims seeking protection in terms of provisions of Section 21 read with Rule 6(2) of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Rules thereunder pleading that they were forced to flee from their houses and are staying outside the village Mirchpur at many places out of fear requiring immediate protection apprehending danger to their lives.
While going through the grounds raised in the application, I was reminded of what the famous poet Wordsworth had to say of fear:
"...What are fears but voices Airy? Whispering harm where harm is not.
And deluding the unwary.
Till the fatal bolt is shot...."
Now coming to the application, it is pleaded by the applicants that after the incident a large number of persons from the St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 37 victims community left the village out of fear and have started residing at other places. It is pleaded that after passing of the order by this court for witness protection and CRPF deployment in the village, some old persons and other persons who were continuing to live in the village, are feeling a sense of security to some extent. It is also pleaded that the remaining witnesses who are not residing in the village are eager to come to Delhi to give evidence but they have no place to live in Delhi and also have no resources. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of the Act, the applicants are now seeking directions to be issued to the GNCT of Delhi to set up a camp at Delhi for approximately 100 families so that they may shift from various places where they are hiding from the dominant community out of fear and come to Delhi and live safely during the period of trial. The applicants are also seeking directions to GNCT of Delhi for providing free of cost clean mattresses and sheets, food, drinking water, medical facilities and toilet facilities and all other basic facilities necessary for subsistence of the witnesses during the trial and to ensure the admission of all their children in the schools of Delhi free of cost during the period of trial. The victims are further seeking directions to the GNCT of Delhi to reimburse travel expenses or to make arrangements for travel of the witnesses attending the trial in accordance with the provisions Rule 11(1) and (2) and also to pay daily maintenance expenses at rates not less than the minimum wages for all the witnesses during the trial in accordance with Rule 11(4) and also diet expenses in accordance with Rule 11 (5). They seek further directions to the GNCT of Delhi to reimburse the expenses relating to St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 38 medicines and also medical assistance, clothing, meals and fruits as set out in Rule 11(7) with further directions to the State of Haryana to reimburse the GNCT of Delhi for the aforesaid expenses.
A detailed response has been filed by both the Government of Haryana and GNCT of Delhi to the above application of the victims. I have also heard the Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the applicants and the Special Public Prosecutors appearing on behalf of GNCT of Delhi and State of Haryana and I have been informed during the course of arguments that the above reliefs sought for by the victims are a duplication of the reliefs which form a part of a prayer made by the victims before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 211/2010. It is argued that the above prayers being a part of the petition sub-judice before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it will not be proper for this court to entertain the present application. The copies of the paper book of the Writ Petition and the various applications filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders passed therein have also been placed before me which I have duly perused.
After considering the rival contentions, at the very outset I may observe that firstly the Indian Constitution makes a strict demarcation within the powers to be exercised by the three wings of the government i.e. the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary who are Supreme in their respective spheres and function Independently of each other. Secondly this court being the court of law is required to act and function within the parameters of statutory law and under no circumstances can it encroach upon the functions and area so reserved St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 39 for the Executive. Thirdly in respect of the prayers made by the victims in the Writ Petition sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are identical in the present application, it will not be appropriate for this court to examine the same while the Hon'ble Apex Court is apprised of the same. Lastly the witness protection arrangement has already been made by this court vide a detailed order dated 1.2.2011 which directions have been duly complied with by the State of Haryana.
Coming now to the provisions of Rule 6 (2) of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 the said rules provide for a spot inspection by the District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Executive Magistrate, Superintendent of Police/ Deputy Superintendent of Police. The said application under the provisions of Rule 6(2) would not lie before the court but even otherwise the report placed on record by the State of Haryana reveals that the steps as contemplated under Rule 6 (2) have already been taken by the District Administration. In case of any non compliance of the aforesaid provisions it is open to the victim to move before the above authorities.
Further, the provisions of Rules 11 and 12 of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 also provide for grant of travelling allowance, daily allowance, maintenance expenses and transport facilities to the victims of atrocities, their dependents and witnesses and it is the District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate who are required to take appropriate steps in this regard.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 40Even the provisions of Rule 12 enumerate the measures required to be taken by the District Administration and the Special Court has no role to play in the same except to consider the report furnished to it to ensure that the payment of relief/ compensation was made to the victims/ dependents in time and was sufficient. I may add that the applicants do not deny that the District Administration has made arrangement in terms of the provisions of Rule 11 and 12 and I may also observe that not even a single victim/ dependent of the victim has approached this court to inform that the payment of relief was not made to them on time or that the compensation was not sufficient.
Further, vide a detailed order dated 1.2.2011 this court had directed the witness protection arrangements in terms of the following:
1.1st Bn. constituting 128 police officials headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector under whose jurisdiction village Mirchpur falls (DSP Amrik Singh) has been deployed.
2.CRPF Coy. deployment has been made at village Mirchpur specifically near the spot of the incident, around the Balmiki Basti which deployment shall continue till such time the public witnesses/ victims in the case are examined/ till further orders of this court. This arrangement is to only re-assure the victims and their families of full security and protection and to remove all traces of fear or pressure from their minds.St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 41
3.Security cover/ gunmen has been provided to the eye witnesses namely Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Tara Chand; Ravinder S/o Late Tara Chand; Pradeep S/o Late Tara Chand; Amar Lal S/o late Tara Chand;
Virbhan S/o Sh. Man Singh, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh.
Ram Kumar; Sh. Karan Singh Nambardar Balmiki, Sh. Satyawan S/o Sh. Roshan Balmiki; Sh. Chander Singh S/o Sh. Abhey Ram @ Abhna Balmiki and Sh.
Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh.
4.In case of any exigency the witnesses, victims, their families have been directed to immediately report the same to DSP (Hansi) Sh. Amrik Singh who shall personally monitor/ supervise the witness protection arrangements under intimation to this court from time to time.
5.A monthly report regarding the security
arrangement/ preventive measures/ witness
protection arrangements has been directed to be submitted/ furnished to this court till the conclusion of trial of this case.
6.Directions have also been issued that any attempt of any kind to overawe, pressurize or threaten the witnesses/ their family members or to create an atmosphere prejudicial to free trial of the case, should be immediately brought to the notice of this court by the Local Administration including DSP St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 42 (Hansi).
The above arrangement has already become effective as was observed by this court during the Local Inspection at village Mirchpur carried out 26.2.2011 in the presence of the area District Magistrate/ District Collector/ Superintendent of Police, counsels for the victims and also the accused and also in the presence of the residents of the village including the families of the victims. This fact regarding the victim protection arrangement is also admitted by the applicants who have submitted that after this order they have felt a sense of security but it is argued by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that some of the families of the victims are still residing away from their village in a private farm house out of fear feeling in-secured in the village and hence requests for indulgence from this court.
I have considered the submissions made. In the words of Coleridge What begins with fear usually ends in folly. It is said that the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear and the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralysis needed efforts to convert and retreat into advance. I am also reminded of a German Proverb that Fear makes the wolf bigger than he is and I may add that courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it.
I need not remind the victims that every inch of this country belongs to all of us and there is no reason why the victims have a trust deficit in the Law Enforcement Agency and Justice St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 43 Delivery System and have refused to return to their village where they have their roots and that too when all necessary steps as contemplated and required have been taken to protect and reassure them. Directions have been issued by this court regarding victim protection arrangements, which arrangements has become effective and is being supervised from time to time. Pursuant to the above, many of the victims and their families, as admitted, have already returned to the village and I find no palpable reason why the others have chosen to stay away and reside at a some private farm house (as pointed out to this court by the victims' counsel). I may observe that in case if they chose to do so, then under what circumstances can the Administration be held responsible for the same and that too when all necessary steps as contemplated under the Rules are being taken.
I may also add that compensation under no circumstances can be made a motivation/ incentive to secure the presence of the witnesses in the court. Compensation to victim of atrocity is only to secure rehabilitation of the victims whereas their presence in the court is to assist in Dispensation of Justice to ensure that the guilty are brought to book. No doubt the victims of atrocities have certain rights but least they may forget that they also have certain obligations and that is to assist the Justice Delivery System by ensuring that he appears and deposes truthfully before the court in order to ensure that Justice is done. Onus of ensuring that the guilty are taken to task, is not entirely upon the State but equally upon the victims and the witnesses without whose assistance it would not be possible.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 44Now coming to the issue regarding payment of expenses and making arrangement for the witnesses during their examination. I may observe that this aspect regarding grant of reimbursement for travelling expenses, arrangement regarding boarding and lodging of witnesses and their protection has been elaborately discussed between the GNCT of Delhi and the Government of Haryana at the Administrative level. As per the joint affidavit filed by the Principle Secretaries, GNCT of Delhi and Government of Haryana before this court, it has already been jointly agreed by the Administrations of both the States that in so far as the the expenses for the victim/ witnesses protection arrangement at Haryana is concerned, it shall be borne by the State of Haryana. However, if situation arises where the victims/ witnesses are required to stay in Delhi pursuant to the directions of this court, then under these circumstances the additional protection and expenditure for the same shall be borne by the GNCT of Delhi. It has been further agreed between both the States that the responsibility for production of the witnesses in the court shall be upon the investigating officer/ Pervi Officer and the expenses for appearance of the witnesses in the court, their boarding and lodging including food etc. shall be borne by GNCT of Delhi reimbursable by the State of Haryana.
Vide a detailed order passed separately this court has directed the framing of charge against the accused persons. I hereby direct the Special Public Prosecutor to place before this court a proposed tentative schedule for examination of witnesses on 11.3.2011 with directions that the Investigating Officer/ Pervi Officer shall St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 45 ensure the presence of these witnesses in Delhi at-least one to two days prior to their examination in the court (as the case may be). Needless to say the expenses for the appearance of the witnesses shall be borne by the Government of Haryana and in case if the witnesses come on their own they shall be entitled to reimbursement as per the existing rules (reimbursable from the State of Haryana). Further, the responsibility of the boarding, lodging, food, medical facilities in Delhi shall be of GNCT of Delhi and the necessary arrangement for the protection of the witnesses particularly the victims during the period of their stay in Delhi shall be made by the GNCT of Delhi. The expenses for the same shall be borne by the GNCT of Delhi (reimbursable from the Government of Haryana as per the joint agreement). With these observations, the application is disposed off. Copy of the same is directed to be supplied to the Special Public Prosecution, GNCT of Delhi, Government of Haryana and the investigating officer for compliance.
At this stage, on request of the counsel for the victims one copy be also given to them.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 10.3.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc., FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaud (Haryana) Page No. 46