Delhi District Court
State vs Smt Rajbala on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. Rajbala
W/o Sh. Swaroop Singh,
R/o RZF-133/1, Raj Nagar Part-2,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 174/18.
FIR No. 427/17.
PS Palam Village.
CNR No. DLSW01-005998-2018.
Charge-sheet filed u/s 4(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA),
2015.
Charge(s) framed against accused 3(1)(x)/3(1)(b) SC/ST
Rajbala (POA) Act, 1989.
Date of institution of case 14.03.2018.
Date of arguments 19.12.2025.
Date of judgment 19.12.2025.
Decision Acquittal.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rajbala is facing trial for offences alleged to be committed u/s 3(1)(x)/(b) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. She is accused of intentionally insult and intimidated with intent to humiliate complainant "KD" (member of SC/ST community) by uttering caste based derogatory remarks to her and by dumping sewage water on the complainant intentionally knowing it that she belongs to SC/ST community.
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 1 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:31 +0530
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per charge-sheet, are that present case was registered on complaint date 02.09.2017 Ex.PW1/A of complainant "KD", which reads as under: -
"सविनय निवेदन यह है कि मैं कै लाश देवी W/o सुभाष चन्द्र R/o RZF-133/1, Gali No. 6, राज नगर पार्ट-II, पालम कालोनी, की निवासी हूँ। मैंने मेरी पडौसी राजबाला के उपर माननीय कोर्ट में एक जातिसूचक कै श किया था, उसकी सुनवाई माननीय श्रीमान जी आपके पास दी है और उसने मुझे व मेरे परिवार को बार-बार जातिसूचक गालियां दी है। राजबाला ने पहले गालियां दी, फिर मैंने व मेरे पति ने 100 नम्बर पर काल किया, पुलिस आई और थाने में आने के लिये दोनों पार्टियों को बोला। मैं वहाँ गई, फिर आते ही दिनाँक 21.11.2015 को उसने जाति सूचक शब्द कहे। और ये सब गली में काफी औरतो को सुनाकर कहे। उसके बाद उसने हमारे घर की खुली नाली में शौचालय का पाईप चोङ रखा था। तभी MCD Staff आया, और उसके आगे भी उसने जातिसूचक शब्द कहें। गली की औरतो ने भी खूब मना किया और उसके बाद दिनाँक 25.10.2016 को शाम के 15.45 hours को उसने अपनी बालकोनी में खड़े होकर लगभग 38 मिनट तक गालियां दी और बार-बार ने जातिसूचक शब्दो का प्रयोग किया। इस CD (clip) में लगभग 11 बार उसने उन शब्दो का प्रयोग किया है और उसके बाद दिनोंक 30.03.2017 को दोपहर में 16:08 hours उसने अपनी छत पर खड़े होकर उसने पहले गालियां दी फिर उसने मुझ पर उपर गन्दा पानी डाल दिया। इस सभी सूचना मैंने थाने व कोर्ट में दे दी है और उसका छत पर कू डा व गंदगी डालने का तो रिकोर्ड बार-बार रहा है। एक बार मैनें कू ड़ा फै कने की शिकायत थाने में दी और उन्होने माना है हमने कू डा फैं का है और हम इसे उठा लेगे। और घर के सामने का भी यही रहा कि बार-बार भी कू डा घर के सामने डाल देती है। जातिसूचक शब्द कभी-कभी तो इतना ज्यादा करती है कि सारी सीमाएं खत्म कर देती है। जब रिकोर्ड करने की कोशिश करते है तभी वह भाषाएं बदल देती है। अतः आपसे निवेदन है कि मेरी शिकायत पर कार्यवाही की जाये। आपकी अति कृ पा होगी।"
3. Upon receiving aforesaid complaint, present FIR was got registered u/s 4(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 and investigation was carried out.
4. During investigation, on 9.12.2017, upon serving a notice u/s 91/160 CrPC, complainant joined the investigation and site plan was prepared at her instance and her statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded, wherein she stated that though she does not have any caste certificate but she belongs to Chamar caste, which comes under SC category. She further FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 2 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:30 +0530
stated that she born at Village Palawa, Thana Mundawar, Tehsil Mundawar, Alwar, Rajasthan, and his brother "MRS" has a caste certificate issued from Tehsildar Mundawar. Therefore, notice u/s 91/160 CrPC was served upon Tehsildar Mundawar, Alwar, Rajasthan, to verify caste of complainant from her birth place and a reply was received from Tehsildar Mundawar, Alwar, Rajasthan, whereby it was reported that complainant belongs to Chamar caste.
5. During further investigation, eye witnesses Vijay Kr.
Gautam and Sanwar Mal were examined and their statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded, who corroborated the allegations.
6. During further investigation, on 02.01.2018, complainant joined investigation and produced electronic evidence/articles/recordings of the alleged incidents in support of her allegations and claimed to have the voice of accused Rajbala passing derogatory caste related words to her. Said articles/recordings have been taken in police possession. Complainant has also objected on the word "dedh" used by the accused to her as the said word has been used as disgrace to someone, who belongs to SC category in local area of Rajasthan, Haryana and western UP.
7. On 08.01.2018, consent of accused Rajbala for her voice sample for comparison at FSL, Rohini, has been obtained before the Court. Accordingly, on 07.02.2018, voice sample of accused Rajbala was recorded as per CD transcription at FSL, Rohini, and recorded voice sample has been seized. On 12.02.2018, exhibits were deposited to FSL for FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 3 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:28 +0530
comparison/opinion. On 15.02.2018, mobile phone and CD seized were deposited to FSL, Rohini, for preparation a copy of recording of alleged incident. FSL result was filed in the Court alongwith supplementary charge-sheet.
8. During investigation, it has been revealed that a dispute was took place between the parties, on the issue of sewer on 21.11.2015 and 25.10.2016 and PCR call of quarrel was also made by the complainant vide DD No. 14A dated 21.11.2015 and DD No. 11A and 13A dated 25.10.2016.
9. Complainant has also alleged that at the time of incident, some MCD official were also present at the spot, however, she could not provide any details of those MCD staff. Statement of relevant witnesses were recorded.
10. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court. Supplementary charge-sheet was also filed in the Court by the IO.
11. Vide order dated 22.11.2022, the Ld. Predecessor Court framed charges against the accused u/s 3(1)(x)/3(1)(b) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses alongwith its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
13. PW1 complainant/"KD" deposed that she belong to Chamar caste by my birth. On 21.11.2015, at about 4.00 pm, when she was present at her house alongwith children, MCD staff came and checked from whose house human waste drain FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 4 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:28 +0530
came into open drainage and asked her and the accused to pour water to assure that from whose house the human waste came out in the open drainage. MCD staff found that human waste came out from the house of the accused and issued a challan against the accused in that regard. Thereafter, the accused started abusing her by uttering derogatory remarks i.e. "dhed, naali ke keede, naali me maroge''. She further deposed that the accused continued to give utterances to her, while standing in balcony. At that time, the complainant was also standing in her balcony alongwith her husband. Then husband of complainant called at 100 number. Police came and took both of them to police station and at police station the accused admitted that she will remove the obstacle in the drain. After coming from the police station, the accused again started abusing complainant and her family by saying "dhed-chamar". She also deposed that on 25.10.2016, again there was inspection by MCD and the filth was still coming out from the house of the accused as the accused did not take any steps to curb the menace. After MCD official left the spot, the accused kept on abusing with caste based derogatory abuses to her and the accused was still continuing with abuses and she even spits on the children of complainant whenever they pass the accused and that the accused still throws garbage in their terrace as well as in front of their house. PW1 further deposed that in that regard, she filed a complaint Ex.PW1/A to ACP Dabri and her caste was verified by police. She further deposed that she handed over her mobile phone FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 5 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:29 +0530
make Xiaomi Ex.P-3 and two DVDs Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 to IO containing footage of the incident, which were seized by vide memo Ex.PW1/B. She also deposed that she also handed over transcript of CCTV footage Ex.PW1/C to police. She proved DVD Ex.P-4 containing data extracted from the mobile phone having CCTV footage of 37.54 minutes stated to be of her house and of the incident. She further deposed that on 25.10.2016, at about 3.45 pm, the accused uttered caste based derogatory remarks to her while standing in her (accused) balcony and on 30.03.2017, at about 4.00 pm, accused uttered caste based remarks to her while standing at her (accused) terrace and thereafter, the accused threw waste water on her and the accused also used to throw garbage and waste on the terrace of complainant. Incident dated 21.11.2015 and 25.10.2016 were eye- witnessed.
14. During cross examination by ld. Additional PP for State, complainant/PW1 deposed that on 09.12.2017, she was examined by the IO but she does not remember whether on that day her statement was recorded or not. She further deposed that she did not get her caste certificate prepared and her parental house is situated at Village Palawa, PS Mundawar, District Alwar. She also deposed that Vijay Gautam, Sanwarmal and other neighbours were witnessed incidents dated 21.11.2015 and 25.10.2016 and MCD staff was witnessed the incident dated 21.11.2015. She further deposed that she showed the places from where accused hurled caste based remarks to ger i.e. their gali, her FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 6 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:29 +0530
(accused) house and balcony of her (accused) house. IO prepared site plan of place of incident.
15. PW2 Vijay Kr. Gautam deposed that he knew "KD" and her husband "S" for the last 10-12 years prior to incident as "S" was working with him earlier in the same company at Vasant Kunj. He further deposed that on 25.10.2016, at about 3.00 pm, he went to house of "S" at Peepal Wali Gali at Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam, and was taking tea there and upon hearing some noise of quarrel, he came out and saw that the accused was abusing "KD" W/o "S" by using castiest remarks against "KD" and the accused was saying "tum dedh ho, gandi nali ke kide ho, aur gandi nali me maroge". He also deposed that the quarrel had taken place on the issue of nali.
16. PW3 Sanwarmal deposed that in the year 2016, he was residing at RZF-52, Gali No. 6, Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam, Colony, New Delhi, and was working at Palam Airport as Assistant Aviation Officer. He further deposed that on 25.10.2016, at about 3.30-4.00 pm, when he was passing through street no. 6, he noticed that some ladies were abusing each other but he cannot identify those ladies. The ladies, who were quarreling with each other, were passing castiest remarks and filthy language for each other. Then he went inside his home. After about 6 months, he was called by police in February, 2017 and his statement was recorded by police.
17. During cross examination conducted by ld. Additional PP for State, he deposed that the accused is residing in the same FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 7 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:29 +0530
street and he knew "KD", who is wife of "S". He further deposed that on 25.10.2016, at about 4.00 pm, when he was passing through the street, accused, complainant and some other ladies were present in the street and the accused was abusing the complainant by using castiest remarks against her "chamaar, dedh, aa kar bas gaye". He also deposed that he was called by police for investigation on 18.12.2017 and his statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the IO. He also deposed that complainant belongs to SC category.
18. PW4 Sunil deposed that on 07.02.2018, he alongwith his mother i.e. accused Rajbala went to FSL, Rohini, for giving voice sample of her mother. Voice sample was recorded in a room, however, same was not recorded in his presence and he remained outside the said room.
19. During cross examination by ld. Additional PP for State, he deposed that on 07.02.2018, voice sample of his mother was recorded at FSL Rohini and recorded voice sample in audio cassette in original was marked "O" and same was kept in an envelope and sealed with seal of "AK" and the same were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that on the same day, his statement Ex.PW4/B was recorded by police.
20. PW5 Kamla deposed that on 07.02.2018, she alongwith accused Rajbala and her son went to FSL, Rohini, for giving voice sample of Rajbala. Voice sample of the accused were recorded in a room, however, the same was not recorded in her presence as she and Sunil (son of accused) remained outside the said room.
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 8 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:29 +0530
21. During cross examination by ld. Additional PP for State, she deposed that she cannot say whether on that day, voice sample of accused was recorded or not as she remained outside the room, however, her thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers but she does not know what was written on said papers.
22. PW6 SI Ombir Singh deposed that on 22.11.2017, he received rukka from the then SHO Inspector Joginder Singh and on the basis of same, he got recorded present FIR Ex.PW6/A (OSR) through Computer Operator and he made endorsement Ex.PW6/B on rukka and issued certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW6/C. He further deposed that copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to ACP Uma Shankar of Delhi Cantt for further investigation.
23. PW7 HC Indra Raj deposed that on 15.02.2018, on the directions of IO, he collected exhibits (in sealed condition) of this case from the MHC(M) and went to FSL, Rohini, and deposited the exhibits vide road certificate no. 14/21/18 and an acknowledgment Ex.PW7/A regarding the same was given to him. He came back to PS and handed over copy of road certificate and acknowledgment to MHC(M) and that so long as exhibits remained in his custody, the same were not tampered in any manner whatsoever.
24. PW8 HC Dinesh deposed that on 16.12.2017, upon receiving a notice, he went to Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan, and served the said notice to Tehsildar, Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan, and thereafter, he gave a copy of receiving of said notice Mark A to IO.
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 9 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:28 +0530
25. PW9 Madan Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan, deposed that he brought the summoned record i.e. record of caste certificate no. 354/1.3.06, which was issued in the name of "MRD" and as per record, "MRD" belongs to "chamar" caste. He has seen copy of caste certificate Ex.PW9/A on record, same is true copy as per their record. He further deposed that he has brought original register containing the entry of certificate Ex.PW9/A at serial no. 354 on 01.03.2006. Copy of the said entry is taken on record and as Ex.PW9/B (OSR). He also deposed that as per their record, a letter no. 3184 dated 15.12.2017 Ex.PW9/D was received at their office from the office of ACP Uma Shankar. Certificate of "MRD" was verified and a letter Ex.PW9/F was issued to ACP, Sub Division Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, vide dispatch register Ex.PW9/G (OSR). Said certificate Ex.PW9/C (colly) was found genuine and was issued in the name of "MRD" vide serial no. 354 on 01.03.2006 alongwith report Ex.PW9/E of Patwari, endorsed by the then Tehsildar.
26. PW10 SI (Retired) Krishan Kumar deposed that 25.10.2016, upon receiving DD No. 11 A, he alongwith Const. Subhash reached at the spot i.e. Gali No. 6, near DDA Park, near Raj Nagar Part-2, where the accused, one Sudhir and one official from MCD met there and a drainage work was being going on there. At the spot, he came to know that there was some quarrel on the issue of construction of drainage, however, no complainant or injured met there and hence, they came back to PS and made DD entry No. 88B. He has FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 10 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:25 +0530
proved copies of DD No. 11A, DD No.13A and DD No. 88B as Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C (OSR).
27. PW11 Inspector Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 21.11.2015, upon receiving DD No. 14A Ex.PW11/A regarding quarrel, he alongwith Constable reached at RZF-133, Gali No-6, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam, and came to know that a mere altercation had taken place between caller "SC" and neighbor Rajbala on the issue of a nali and that as no cognizable offence was committed, he filed the said PCR call vide DD No. 54B.
28. PW12 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director, Physics FSL, Rohini, deposed that upon receiving exhibits of this case, he examined the same and prepared his report Ex.PW12/A.
29. PW13 Riya Saini, Laboratory Assistant, FSL, Rohini, deposed that he has been deputed by the Director, FSL, to appear and depose on behalf of Vikas Kumar, Reporting Officer, as he had already left the services of FSL, Rohini, and his present complete whereabouts are not with their office. She further deposed that she is acquainted with handwriting and signatures of Vikas Kumar, Reporting Officer, as she had seen him (Vikas Kumar) writing and signing during official duties. She further deposed that after examining Xiaomi mobile phone and Moserbaer made Digital Versatile Disc, Vikas Kumar prepared his detailed report dated 30.04.2019 Ex.PW13/A and issued certificate u/s 65B(4)(C) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW13/B.
30. PW14 DCP Uma Shankar deposed that in year 2017, he was posted as ACP, Delhi Cantt, and during investigation, he met FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 11 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:27 +0530
complainant and recorded her statement. Complainant was not having her caste certificate and hence, she provided caste certificate Ex.PW9/A of her brother "MR", which shows that complainant belongs to SC category. He further deposed that complainant had provided one mobile phone of MI company alongwith two DVDs containing incident, which were captured in the mobile phone and the DVD was copies of said incident dated 25.10.2016, which was captured in mobile. Mobile phone Ex.1 and one DVD Ex.2 was put in a white envelop and was sealed with the seal of "AK", whereas other DVD was taken on file as evidence. He further deposed that complainant provided two CDs containing CCTV footage of 21.11.2015 at 14.36 hours recorded in DVR installed at her house. One CD Ex.3 was kept in a yellow envelop and was sealed with the seal of "AK". He also deposed that complainant also provided two CDs containing incident of 21.11.2015 at 15.58 hours captured by DVR installed in a house, one CD Ex.4 was put in a yellow envelop and was sealed with the seal of "AK" and other CDs were also taken on file. Complainant also provided transcription Ex.PW1/C of alleged incident and all above articles were seized vide Ex.PW1/B. Complainant had informed about the witnesses of incident dated 25.10.2016 i.e. Vijay and Sanwar, who were interrogated and recorded their statement and they corroborated the incident. He further deposed that during investigation, he got verified case of complainant "KD" and "MR" from Tehsildar Mundavar, who verified that complainant "KD"
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 12 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:30 +0530
and "MR" belongs to SC category by caste and proved caste certificate of "MR" as Ex.PW9/F of the complainant "KD" as Ex.PW9/E and his notice Ex.PW9/D to Tehsildar for verification of caste of "KD". He further deposed that he filed an application Ex.PW14/A before the Court concerned for obtaining voice sample of the accused, which was allowed vide order dated 08.01.2018 Ex.PW14/B upon no objection of the accused. Thereafter, he moved an application Ex.PW14/C before FSL, Rohini, for providing the date for obtaining voice sample of accused and FSL had given the date 20.02.2018, which was preponed to 07.02.2018 vide their noting Ex.PW14/D. He further deposed that the accused appeared before FSL, where her voice sample was obtained and one audio cassettes Mark-O was put in an envelop and was sealed with the seal of "AK" and then the same was seized vide Ex.PW4/A. Similarly, copy of said voice sample containing in the audio cassette was put in an envelop and was sealed with the seal of "AK" and was seized vide Ex.PW14/E in the presence of witnesses Sunil and Kamla, who are son and neighbourer of accused, respectively. He also submitted that complainant had provided certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW14/F, which was taken on record. He further deposed that during investigation, he sent mobile phone, DVD, CD and audio cassettes to FSL for scientific analysis and also collected relevant DD entries Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C. He also deposed that during investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses and upon FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 13 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:27 +0530
completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in the Court. He further deposed that later, upon receiving FSL results Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW12/A, he prepared supplementary charge-sheets and filed the same in the Court. He identified mobile phone Ex.P-3, CD Ex.P-1, DVD Ex.P-4, CD Ex.P-2 and audio cassette Ex.PW14/1.
31. PW14 DCP Uma Shankar was recalled u/s 311 CrPC, wherein he deposed that CD transcript Ex.PW14/G was prepared after playing and hearing over the voices in the CD played during investigation.
32. PW15 Inspector Ajay Kumar deposed that on 02.01.2018, he joined investigation of this case with IO ACP Uma Shankar, who seized case property with the seal of "AK" vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B to which he has witnessed. He further deposed that on 12.02.2018, he deposited case property at FSL, Rohini, vide RC No. 11/21/18 Mark PW15/A. Case property acceptance was issued by official of FSL vide no. FSL-2018/P-1200 dated 12.02.2018 Ex.PW15/B. He further deposed that official of FSL had returned the exhibit mentioned at serial no. 1 of the forwarding letter and the same was deposited in the malkhana on the same date. He identified case property Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 seized by IO.
33. PW16 HC Sanjay deposed that on 02.01.2018, IO SI Ajay Mishra has deposited one mobile phone and 2 DVDs in sealed condition sealed with seal of "AK" with copies of seizure memos, which PW16 deposited in the malkhana and FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 14 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:28 +0530
made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no. 824 Ex.PW16/A (OSR).
34. PW17 HC Dinesh deposed that on 07.02.2018, ACP Uma Shankar, Delhi Cantt, has deposited one sealed parcel i.e. voice sample original sealed with the seal of "AK" alongwith copies of seizure memo and another sealed parcel i.e. of voice sample (copy) sealed with the seal of "AK" alongwith copies of seizure memo, which he (PW17) deposited in the malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no. 859 Ex.PW17/A (OSR). He further deposed that on 12.02.2018, SI Ajay Mishra had taken 3 pulandas to deposit the same in FSL and he (PW17) handed over the said pulandas vide RC No. 11/21/18 and made an entry in this regard at point X. He proved copy of RC No. 11/21/18 Ex.PW17/B (OSR) alongwith its acknowledgment. He also deposed that on 15.02.2018, Const. Inder Raj had taken one sealed pulanda to deposit the same in FSL and he (PW17) handed over the said pulandas vide RC No. 14/21/18 and after which Const. Inder Raj deposited the acknowledgment with him (PW17) and after which he (PW17) made an entry in this regard at point Z-1. He proved copy of RC No. 11/21/18 is now Ex.PW17/C (OSR) alongwith its acknowledgment. He further testified that on 07.06.2018, Const. Aman had brought 3 pulandas alongwith FSL result from FSL, Rohini, and FSL result was handed over to IO and he (PW17) received 3 pulandas and he (PW17) made relevant entry in this regard at point Y. he further deposed that on 03.05.2019, Const. Hari Mohan had brought one FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 15 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:26 +0530
pulanda alongwith FSL result from FSL, Rohini, and FSL result was handed over to IO and he (PW17) received the pulanda and he (PW17) made relevant entry in this regard at point Z.
35. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC (351 BNSS), wherein she denied all the allegations levelled against her. She stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She further stated that present case has been got registered by complainant by misusing the process of law as a revengeful act as complainant and her husband wanted them that they should dispose of their house property adjoining to the property of complainant and her husband at throwaway prices in order to ensure that the same is purchased by them. She further submitted that both complainant and her husband wanted to get her husband terminated from his job. Even the records are forged and fabricated and even CCTV footage, DVDs are forged and fabricated as there is no public view in CCTV footage and witnesses have been planted. She also stated that even police visited the spot, no cognizable offence was made out, which is a matter of record and deposition of IO with regard to pen drive is also false as no order was given to him to prepare the pen drive and filed the same during the proceedings and that IO filed the pen drive subsequently at the instance of complainant as nothing was coming out from the DVD. She also stated that even no certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act was given qua pen drive. There are FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 16 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:25 +0530
multiple cases are pending between complainant and her husband one side and her (accused) and her husband on another side. She further stated that even the witnesses are seen coming and going in CCTV footage, who are not residing on given address which shows that they are planted witnesses. She further submitted that hard disk was deliberately not provided and taken on record. The house of complainant is a very old construction and it is in dilapidated condition and has gone down about 1 - 2 feet from street level and complainant and her husband have been unnecessarily quarreling with accused and her family.
36. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and has examined 5 witnesses in her defence.
37. DW1 Sunita, SJA, Record Room (Session), Dwarka Courts, deposed that she has brought summoned report of case bearing Cr. Revision No. 440176/2016 titled as "Subhash Chander Vs. The State & Others" and proved photocopy of judgment passed in the said case on 03.11.2018 as Ex.DW1/A (colly 25 pages) (OSR).
38. DW2 Rajesh Kumar, JA, Assistant Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, Ld. ASJ (FTC), Dwarka Courts, and deposed that he has brought the summoned record in Criminal Case No. 1/2023 in case FIR No. 359/2013 of PS Palam Village, u/s 324/34 IPC dated 14.10.2013, titled as "State Vs. Saroop Singh" and proved copy of abovesaid FIR as Ex.DW2/A (OSR) and copy of statement of Sunder Lal S/o Balbir Singh u/s 161 CrPC recorded on 23.03.2014 in the said FIR as Ex.DW2/B FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 17 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:30 +0530
(OSR). He further deposed that he has also brought case file of SC Case No. 441411/2016 in case FIR No. 22/2016 of PS Palam Village, dated 18.01.2016, u/s 307/308/452/506 IPC titled as "State Vs. Subhash Chander" and proved copy of abovesaid FIR as Ex.DW2/C (OSR), order dated 14.01.2016 u/s 156 CrPC as Ex.DW2/D (OSR), copy of complaint filed by Swaroop Singh address to DIG, Shastri Park, New Delhi, as Mark A, copy of compliant address to concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as Mark B, copy of complaint dated 18.11.2013 filed by Swaroop Singh and addressed to SHO of PS Palam Village as Mark C, copy of complaint to ACP of PS Dabri dated 15.11.2013 filed by Swaroop Singh as Mark D, copy of postal receipts dated 18.11.2013 Mark E (colly), copy of affidavit dated 13.07.2013 duly signed by Subhash Chander and Swaroop Singh as Mark F and original postal receipt dated 29.09.2015 as Ex.DW2/E (colly), the copy of which is part of judicial record of case titled "State Vs. Subhash Chander"
SC Case No. 441411/2016.
39. DW3 Bharat Bhushan, JJA in the Court of Sh. Vaibhav Chaurasia, Ld. ASCJ/JSCC/GJ South West, Dwarka Courts, deposed that he has brought the summoned record in case titled as "Subhash Chander Vs. SDMC & Others" civil suit no. 171/2015, case titled as "Rajbala Vs. Subhash Chander"
civil suit no. 284/16 and case titled as "Subhash Chander Vs. Rajbala & Another" counter claim no. 1/17. He has further deposed that in case titled as "Subhash Chander Vs. SDMC & Others" civil suit no. 171/2015, copy of plaint FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 18 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:26 +0530
alongwith application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is Ex.DW3/A (colly) (OSR), copy of written statement and reply to application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by Rajbala on behalf of defendant namely Saroop in said case Ex.DW3/B (colly) (OSR), copy of plaint in case titled as "Rajabala Vs. Subhash & Others" civil suit no. 284/2016 Ex.DW3/C (colly) and copy of counterclaim no. 1/2017 in case tiled as "Subhash Chander Vs. Rajbala & Others"
Ex.DW3/D (colly).
40. DW4 W-HC Mamta Rani deposed that she has brought copy of order dated 06.10.2025 issued by DCP Office, Dwarka District, duly signed by ACP/HQ for DCP, Dwarka District and as per the said order, the relevant record has been wedded out and the period is mentioned at serial No. 1 of said letter Mark X.
41. DW5 HC Manoj deposed that he brought attested copy of order No. 11736-42/HAR/SWD dated 07.10.2024 issued by ACP HQ for DCP, South-West District, alongwith covering letter dated 02.12.2025 duly signed by him as Ex.DW5/A (colly) and as per said order, summoned record has been wedded out, which is mentioned at serial no. 21 mentioned at point A-A1 of said order. He further proved copy of summons sent by this Court alongwith application for summoning the witness and application of accused and her husband sent by this Court enclosed with the said covering letter and above-mentioned order, which are Mark Y.
42. Final arguments were advanced by Ms. Rajesh Kumari, ld.
Additional PP for State duly assisted by Sh. Ashok Tobaria, FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 19 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:30 +0530
ld. counsel for complainant and Sh. Pratap Singh, ld. counsel for accused.
43. Ld. Additional PP for State assisted by ld. counsel for complainant argued that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. That the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have remained consistent and credible despite rigorous cross-examination and the documentary as well as scientific evidence duly corroborates the oral testimony. They have further argued that the accused has failed to raise any cogent or legally sustainable plea, nor has it been able to discredit the prosecution's case. They have also argued that the acts of the accused including the hurling of castiest remarks in public view and the dumping of human excreta in front of the complainant's house, clearly fall within the ambit of offences punishable under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thus, the accused Rajbala should be convicted for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(x)and 3(1)(b) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
44. Per contra, ld. counsel for accused submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is stated that the electronic evidence in the form of recordings from mobile phone and CCTV footage are not reliable as the chain of custody is not proved by the prosecution. It is also argued that so called independent witnesses i.e. PW2 Vijay Kr. Gautam and PW3 Sanwarmal are not independent witnesses as they are known/friends of the husband of complainant. It is further FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 20 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:24 +0530
argued that for the commission of offence u/s 3(1)(x) and Section 3(1)(b) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the alleged acts should be committed against the victim/complaint with the requisite intention and knowledge. In the instant case, the prosecution has not placed on record any evidence to show that the accused had intentionally committed any act against the victim/complainant. It is also argued that the complainant in her complaint 02.09.2017 (Ex.PW1/A) had not specifically disclosed the caste based utterances and has later on improved her version and alleged that castiest remarks were made by the accused to her. He further argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused should be acquainted under all Sections of law under which charges have been framed against her.
45. In the present case, charge u/s 3(1)(x) and Section 3(1)(b) of SC/ST (POA) Act have been framed against the accused. These Sections are elaborated as under: -
"3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act - corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used.
3(1)(b) SC/ST (POA) Act - dumps excreta, sewage, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in premises, or at the entrance of the premises, occupied by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe."
46. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 21 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:26 +0530
judgments relied by ld. counsel for complainant as well as ld. counsel for accused.
47. The case of the prosecution is that accused Rajbala with intent to humiliate complainant had uttered castiest remarks i.e. "dhed, naali ke keede, naali me maroge" and "dhed chamar" to her on different occasions. The complainant in her complaint dated 02.09.2017 Ex.PW1/A had highlighted three such incidents occurred on 21.11.2015, 25.10.2016 and 30.03.2017. It is also alleged by the complainant that the accused is dumping excreta/human waste/garbage in front of her house by keeping the drainage pipe in the open sewer line of the complainant. On the basis of her complaint, FIR (Ex.PW6/A) was lodged on 22.11.2017 u/s 4(1)(r)/4(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
48. Before delving into the facts of the case it is essential to discuss the law that governs the field for Offence u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act (earlier act 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act).
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swaran Singh & Ors vs State Tr.Standing Council & Anr (2008 AIR SCW 5758) has held as under: -
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 22 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:25 +0530
some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
(ii) In Daya Bhatnagar And Ors. vs State, 109 (2004) DLT 915 it was held as under: -
"15. Basic ingredients for the offence under Clause
(x) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, revealed through the bare reading of this section are as follows: (a) there should be intentional insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a member of SC or ST; (b) the insult must be with an intent to humiliate the member of the SC or ST. As the intent to humiliate is necessary, it follows that the accused must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to the SC or ST. This can be inferred even from long association; and (c) the incident must occur in any place within the public view. There cannot be any dispute that the offence can be committed at any place whether it is a private place or a "public view" as long as it is within the "public view". The requirement of "public view" can be satisfied even in a private place, where the public is present. I find myself in agreement with the following observations of learned brother Mr. Justice. B.A. Khan while expounding the ingredients of the offence: -
"If the accused does not know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating is a member of SC or ST, an offence under this section would not be constituted. Similarly, if he does not do all this at any place within "public view", the offence would not be made out. Therefore, to attract an offence under Section 3(i)(x), an accused must know that victim belongs to SC/ST caste and he must intentionally insult, FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 23 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:27 +0530
intimidate and humiliate him/her at a place within "public view". The place need not be a public place. It could be even at a private place provided the utterance was made within "public view""...........
19. The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub-clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(i) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub- clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view'. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned brother Mr. Justice B.A. Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under: -
"I accordingly hold that expression within 'public view' occurring in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 24 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:31 +0530
comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used.""
(iii) In Smt. Deepa Bajwa vs State And Ors, 115 (2004) DLT 202 it was held as under: -
"6. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that a complaint, on the basis of which the complainant seeks registration of an F.I.R., must disclose essential ingredients of the offence and in case a complaint lacks or is wanting in any of the essential ingredients, the lacuna or deficiency cannot be filled up by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement and thereafter proceed to register the F.I.R. If such a course is permitted, it would give undue latitude as well as opportunity to unscrupulous complainants to nail others by hook or by crook in spite of the fact that their initial complaint does not make out the offence complained of. Such a course would be utter abuse of the process of law. First version as disclosed in a complaint is always important for adjudicating as to whether an accused has committed or not an offence. In the complaint dated 19th April, 2001, the Complainant himself alleged that the Councillor Chhannu Mal was introducing him to the petitioner. If that was the case, how could he say later that on that day the petitioner knew that he was a Scheduled Caste. This statement, therefore, was a crude falsity introduced at the behest of the police to implicate the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act. This effort on the part of the police to supply the deficiency and cover up a lacuna in the complaint in view of legal opinion was totally unwarranted and an abuse of the process of law."
(iv) In the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 668, it was held as under: -
"17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 25 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:30 +0530
appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge- sheet dated 21 st January, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not "in any place within public view", the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present."
(v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , has held as under: -
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 26 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:26 +0530
jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste."
49. From the above discussions, it emerges that for commission of offences u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act, the prosecution has to prove as under: -
(a) There should be intentionally insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a member of SC/ST community;
(b) The insult must be with the intent to humiliate the member of SC/ST community;
(c) The incident must occur in any place within the public view.
50. Similarly for commission of offence u/s 3(1)(b) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the prosecution must prove the act of dumping excreta, sewage, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in premises or at the entrance of the premises occupying by a member of SC/ST community. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hitesh Verma (supra), has observed that the object of the SC/ST (POA) Act is to improve the socio-economic condition of SC/ST as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of vulnerable section of the society is subject to indignities, humiliations or harassment and not when an act is done without any mischief.
51. Having observed as above, now it is pertinent to evaluate the nature of evidence produced/proved by the prosecution in order to bring out the charges against the accused FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 27 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:27 +0530
Rajbala. The evidence in this case can be bifurcated under following heads: -
(a) Statement of complainant in complaint Ex.PW1/A and her testimony recorded before the Court.
(b) The testimonies of independent witnesses i.e. PW2 Vijay Kr. Gautam and PW3 Sanwarmal.
(c) Electronic evidence in the form of recordings extracted from CCTV footage and mobile phone.
52. The evidence led by the prosecution is now being appreciated by this Court as under: -
(A) Statement of complainant in complaint Ex.PW1/A and her testimony recorded before the Court.
A.1 The statement of complainant in complaint Ex.PW1/A does not disclose the specific caste based utterances made by accused Rajbala to her. Upon perusal of complaint, it is only revealed that the accused uttered castiest remarks to the complainant on 21.11.2015, 25.10.2016 and 30.03.2017 in presence of some female neighbours and MCD staff. It is only during her testimony before this Court that she had elaborated the caste based utterances of accused Rajbala, who called her "dhed, naali ke keede, naali me maroge" and "dhed chamar". During cross examination, the complainant was confronted with her complaint Ex.PW1/A. No explanation was offered by her as to why she had not elaborated the castiest remarks in her complaint Ex.PW1/A. In view of the law laid down in case Smt. Deepa Bajwa (supra), the complainant cannot be FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 28 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:27 +0530
allowed to cover up the lacuna in the initial complaint as the same would be an abuse of process of law. It is settled position of law that the complaint on the basis of which the complainant seeks registration of an FIR, must disclosed essential ingredients of the offence and in case a complaint lacks or is wanting in any of the essential ingredients, the lacuna or deficiency cannot be filled up by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement.
A.2 Even otherwise, the testimony of complainant does not inspire confidence as at one place she herself submits that there was no eye witness to the incident and at other place she submits that Vijay Kr. Gautam and Sanwarmal witnessed the incident. Upon perusal of her testimony, the offence u/s 3(1)(b) SC/ST (POA) Act cannot be made out against the accused as apart from her, there is no other witness to support the claim of the complainant that accused used to throw garbage on her terrace and in front of her house. There is no witness, who has corroborated the version of the complainant that the accused used spit on the children of the complainant. The complainant could not substantiate that the accused had deliberately left the drainage pipe open in the sewer line of the complainant. Just because the accused has not taken steps to repair the open drainage, it would not ipso facto amount to the fact that the accused had deliberately left it open so as to annoy, intimidate or FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 29 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:28 +0530
insult the complainant, who is a member of SC/ST community. Reliance is placed on the judgment Hitesh Verma (supra).
(B) The testimonies of independent witnesses i.e. PW2 Vijay Kr. Gautam and PW3 Sanwarmal.
B.1 PW2 Vijay Kr. Gautam in his examination in chief has deposed that he had seen the accused saying castiest remarks and he stated that such remarks were made by the accused while she was standing outside her house. However, PW1 complainant has deposed that caste based utterances were made when the accused was standing in her balcony/terrace. It is stated by her as under: -
"On 25.10.2016, at about 3.45 pm, accused Rajbala uttered caste based derogatory remarks to me while standing in her balcony and on 30.03.2017, at about 4.00 pm, accused uttered caste based remarks to me while standing at her terrace and thereafter, ... ... ..."
Technically, the version of PW2 should have corroborated with the version of PW1 i.e. complainant but in the instant case, the same remains uncorroborated for the aforesaid observation. B.2 PW3 Sanwarmal in his examination in chief has deposed that on 25.10.2016, at about 3.30-4.00 pm, he had noticed some ladies were abusing each other but he cannot identify those ladies but upon cross examination by ld. Additional PP for State, he stated that the accused had abused the complainant. However, in his FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 30 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:30 +0530
cross examination, he has stated that he had seen the complainant and the accused in their houses. And then again said that he had heard quarrel voice from the houses and then on asking, the complainant informed him that the accused was abusing her. This raises doubt upon the testimony of PW3 Sanwarmal as an eye witness. He himself has admitted that the complainant had informed him about the fact that the accused had abused her.
B.3 It is not out of place to mention that both i.e. PW2 Vijay Kr. Gautam and PW3 Sanwarmal may be planted by the complainant. As the complainant in her testimony as PW1 has stated that " I know Vijay Kr. Gautam for last 15-20 years. He is Sharma by caste. We have cordial relations with Vijay and his family. I know Sanwarmal as he is colleague of my husband. He is resident of our street. We are having good relations with Sanwarmal and his family." Similarly, PW3 in his testimony has stated that "Husband of complainant was working in my office. He worked with me since his joining in the company in 2013 to January 2018. It is correct that I was having visiting terms with the husband of complainant. It is correct that I became a witness as I knew the complainant and her husband and was having very harmonious relations with them. I do not remember the names of the children of the complainant. The house of complainant was situated at a distance of about 30-40 feet from my residence. "
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 31 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:28 +0530
The testimonies of complainant i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW3 does not inspire confidence. In fact, the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the place of incident remains doubtful. They cannot be treated as independent witnesses in view of the judgment in Daya Bhatnagar (supra) and Virender Verma Vs Neeraj Bajpai, 2018 SCC OnLine 11399, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under: -
"Learned Trial Court rightly excluded the testimony of Samrendar Kant Pathak from consideration keeping in mind his close, personal and professional association with Virender Verma as per the ratio laid down in Daya Bhatnagar v. State reported as (2004) 109 DLT 915. In Daya Bhatnagar (supra), it was held that 'public view' for the purposes of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would have to mean presence of public persons. It was held that the public persons present should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties and persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant would get excluded."
B.4 Lastly, PW14 DCP Uma Shankar in his testimony has stated that both the witnesses were not seen coming and going into or near the house of the complainant. Thus, the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the place of incident at the time of incident is highly unlikely.
(C) Electronic evidence in the form of recordings extracted from CCTV footage and mobile phone.
C.1 Before relying upon any electronic evidence, the Court is duty bound to evaluate the following aspects: -
(i) Who made the recording? Someone who managed FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 32 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:24 +0530
or operated the camera system, like its caretaker, needs to explain how the system works and confirm it was recording properly.
(ii) How was it kept safe? The court will check if the video was stored securely and retrieved from a trusted source. This proves no one could easily tamper with it.
(iii) Has it been changed? The court has to look for any signs of editing, strange visual errors, or missing parts, which would make them doubt its truthfulness.
C.2 To establish the authenticity and reliability of the video, a series of checks are performed. First, the chain of custody must be proven. This involves a competent witness, such as the system's caretaker, who can testify to its proper functioning and confirm that the recording was made correctly. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that the video was stored securely and retrieved from a legitimate source, ensuring it was not tampered with. Finally, the footage itself is examined for any signs of manipulation, such as editing or visual inconsistencies, which could cast doubt on its truthfulness.
C.3 The Courts have to evaluate how the video was handled from the moment it was recorded. Whether there is continuous chain of custody i.e. an exhaustive and unbroken log of the video's handling is crucial, starting from its initial recording until it's presented in FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 33 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:24 +0530
court. The exact time and geographical location of the video's capture must be precisely documented. There is a need to know the exact time and place it was first captured. The specific methods used to transfer the video to police or legal professionals must be clearly articulated. The Court requires a clear explanation of how the video was transferred to the police or legal professionals. There must be absolute, demonstrable proof that the video evidence is pristine and has not been altered or modified in any way. The Court would look for confirmation that the footage stayed untouched throughout this entire process. If there's any gap or uncertainty in this record, the court might not allow the video to be used at all.
C.4 To address concerns about tampering and reliability, certain safeguards have been suggested by courts. They are as under: -
(i) Metadata and Hash Values - Using digital signatures and hash functions ensures data integrity.
(ii) Expert Testimony - Forensic experts can authenticate whether footage is original or tampered.
(iii) Maintenance of Logs - CCTV systems should maintain usage logs to track who accessed the recordings.
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 34 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:27 +0530
(iv) Independent Certification - Certificates under Section 65B should be issued by competent technical personnel.
C.5 In the instant case, as per seizure memo PW1/B the following electronic evidence was seized: -
S. No. Article Incident Exhibit No.
1 One mobile phone and two 25.10.2016 Mobile phone Ex.1
DVDs DVD Ex.2
2 Two CDs containing 21.11.2015 CDs Ex.3
CCTV footage with sound
3 Two CDs containing 21.11.2015 CDs Ex.4
CCTV footage with sound
C.6 During course of investigation, voice sample of both accused and complainant were obtained (as proved by PW4 and PW5), which were compared with some CDs that were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. A FSL report dated 01.06.2018 was obtained which is Ex.PW12/A. As per the FSL report Ex.PW12/A, the voice in Ex.3 matched with the voice of accused Rajbala. The voice in Ex.4 could not be identified as the same was not clear. The said FSL report is duly proved by PW12 Dr. C.P. Singh. C.7 There is another FSL report i.e. Ex.PW13/A, as per which the recordings were extracted from the mobile phone and was placed in DVD. This report is duly proved by PW13 Riya Saini.
C.8 What is interesting is that the DVR was never sent to FSL for expert's opinion. The mobile phone was sent FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 35 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:26 +0530
to FSL but only recordings were extracted, without such recordings being compared with the voice samples of accused and the complainant. In such scenario, the extracted recordings of the mobile phone will not help the prosecution. Moreover, PW14 DCP Uma Shankar in his testimony has deposed that in such recording, no passersby can be seen. Only voice could be heard, which were not compared with the voice samples obtained. It is also stated by him that he had not taken the hash value of mobile phone before its seizure.
C.9 Even the reliability of Ex.PW12/A depletes for the reasons that the original DVR was not sent to FSL, the recordings were made by the complainant in CDs, without any hash value, meta data etc. Thus, the authenticity and the integrity of the CDs Ex.3 and Ex.4 is doubtful and does not meet the standard for reliability of electronic evidence.
C.10 In the instant case, the prosecution has relied upon electronic evidence to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. The evidence being extracted recordings in CDs from CCTV footage and mobile recordings. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the authenticity and integrity of the electronic evidence relied upon by it. The primary evidence i.e. DVR of CCTV footage of both the recordings was never seized by the police officials and only extracted recordings were part of the charge-sheet.
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 36 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:26 +0530
These extracted recordings were without any hash value, meta data, log book etc. In such scenario, it is not safe to rely upon the electronic evidence produced by the prosecution.
53. Apart from the above discussion, there are other lacunas in the story of prosecution. Firstly, the caste of the complainant is not duly verified. The investigating agency has only verified the caste certificate issued to the brother of the complainant but there is nothing on record to show that "MRD" was the brother of the complainant. There is no document on record to show that the complainant was sister of "MRD" and daughter of late Sh. "RD". Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the complainant actually belongs to SC/ST community. Secondly, as per DD No. 54B dated 21.11.2015, no cognizable offence was found to be committed and as per DD No. 88B dated 25.10.2016, no quarrel/no injured person was found. Upon comprehensive reading of DD No. 54B, 14A, 88B, 11A and 13A and testimonies of PW10 SI (Retired) Krishan Kumar and PW11 Inspector Sandeep Kumar, it is clear that commission of no cognizable offence was made out. Thirdly, as per the testimony of PW1 i.e. complainant, the incident occurred in presence of MCD officials, however, the prosecution did not examine any MCD official in the instant case. MCD officials would have been the correct witnesses for examination as they were independent and no doubt could been raised as to their independence.
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 37 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:31 +0530
54. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be of sterling quality. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that: -
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness"
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 38 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:25 +0530
oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
55. In case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) SCC 170, it is held that: -
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
56. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witnesses should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
57. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that PW1 complainant, PW2 Vijay Kr. Gautam and PW3 Sanwarmal are not witnesses of sterling quality as their versions is not natural and they have not been able to withstand the test of cross examination. The forensic evidence in the present case is not reliable.
58. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 39 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:29 +0530
accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
59. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2000 SC 1209, has held as under: -
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the ac- cused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the ap- pellants were the real culprits."
60. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another, 2007(6) Supreme 164, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: -
"The golden thread which runs through the web of ad- ministration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his in- nocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an in- nocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
61. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 3206, has held as under: -
"Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicating or punishing an accused does not arise......"
FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 40 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:29 +0530
62. In the present case, due to non-reliable testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 serious doubt casts upon the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence, the benefit of the same must go to the accused.
63. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Rajbala.
64. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Rajbala stands acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)
(x)/3(1)(b) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Court on 19.12.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.
PS Palam Village. Page No. 41 of 41.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.12.19
15:41:29 +0530