Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kumar Etc on 22 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 59430/2016)
CNR No. : DLNT01-012839-2016
FIR No. 704/2016
Police Station S.P. Badli
Charge sheet filed Under Section 3(1)(r) of
Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities Act
1989)
Charge framed Under Section 3(1)(r)of
Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities Act
1989)
State V/s (i) Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramchander
R/o H. No. 61A, Yadav Nagar,
Samaipur Badli, Delhi
(ii) Anita @ Urmila
W/o Raj Kumar
R/o H. No. 61A, Yadav Nagar,
Samaipur Badli, Delhi
(iii) Meenakshi Raj @ Twinkle
D/o Raj Kumar
R/o H. No. 61A, Yadav Nagar,
Samaipur Badli, Delhi
......Accused Persons
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA
VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22
14:35:47
State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 40 +0530
Date of institution 16.11.2016
Arguments concluded on 12.08.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 22.08.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The prosecution story as set out in the charge-sheet is that the complaint, which, is of dated 08.08.2016, was filed by the complainant 'S' stating that she is a TGT teacher and belongs to schedule caste. It has been further stated that she married with a person namely Rajesh in the month of September, 2003 and it was an inter caste marriage. It has been complained that the elder brother of her husband namely Raj Kumar and other family members did not accept their marriage and used to say ill words against her. It has been further complained that when she alongwith her husband started constructing their house, then, her brother in law Raj Kumar, sister in law Urmila @ Anita, their son Balram, Daughters Twinkle and Monika started quarelling with them. Further, it has been alleged that on 17.06.2016, at about 03.30 - 04.00 p.m., all of them, abused her and insulted complainant S, who is a member of SC/ST Community by passing castiest remarks by calling her as 'Chamari-Chamari' in the street, where number of persons were gathered. Being Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date: 2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:35:53 +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 40 aggrieved by above said Act, she filed the complaint.
2. On the basis of the above said complaint, FIR 0704/16 was registered under Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act. After investigation and recording of the witnesses, chargesheet was filed under section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act.
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 03.03.2017, charge under Section 3(1) (r) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe against all the three accused persons were found to be prima facie made out. The formal charge was framed on the said date and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 20 witnesses in all.
(i) PW-1 is Ms. Rekha, assistant Teacher, who proved the date of birth certificate of Meenakshi Raj as Ex. PW1/D and her admission form as Ex. PW1/C and admission register Ex.
PW1/B. She proved her reply in response to letter of ACP, SP Badli as Ex. PW1/A.
(ii) PW-2 is Ct. Ashok Kumar, he testified that on Digitally signed by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2025.08.22 14:35:58 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 40 18.06.2016, one complaint of complainant 'S' was received vide serial no. 752 and same was marked to HC Chander for necessary action and it was marked to Inspector Ravi Kumar for further necessary action. It has been further testified by him that after registration of FIR on 10.07.2016, the investigation was marked to sub division ACP Badli for investigation. He proved the complaint registered as Ex. PW-2/A .
(iii) PW-3 is Vipin Kumar, he brought the summoned record regarding the caste verification of complainant. He exhibited the certified copy of relevant record as Ex. PW3/A.
(iv) PW-4 is Sh. Jagdish Kumar, MTS National Commission of Schedule Caste, he brought the original case file of the relevant record and testified that as per record, a complaint of complainant was received in the commission on 15.07.2016 and the same was exhibited as marked PW4/A.
(v) PW-5 is Sh. Suneel Anchipake, IAS, SDM Alipur. He proved the caste certificate of complainant as Ex. PW5/A. He further testified that as per record, complainant 'S' daughter of Sh. 'M' belongs to Jatav or Jatav Chamar Caste. He further testified that the above said certificate was issued on the basis of the certificate issued to Sh. 'L' who is the brother of the complainant.
Digitally signed by VANDANAVANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:36:02 +0530 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 40
(vi) PW-6 is ASI Jai Kumar. He proved the FIR as Ex.
PW6/A and his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW6/B. He further testified that on receiving rukka from Inspector Ravi Kumar, he registered the present FIR No. 704/16 under section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act.
(vii) PW-7 is the complainant herself, who reiterated the contents of her complaint and exhibited her complaint as Ex. PW7/A.
(viii) PW-8 is HC Rajbir Singh. He deposed that on 26.10.2016, he alongwith HC Santu Lal visited the office of ACP Vikram Singh, there accused Raj Kumar, was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/B, both these memos bearing his signatures at point A respectively. He also proved the disclosure statement of the accused i.e. Ex. PW8/C bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, medical examination of accused was conducted and was produced before the Special court and thereafter, accused was sent to JC. After that, his statement was got recorded by the IO.
(ix) PW-9 is Smt. Laxmi. She is the mother-in-law of complainant and also mother of accused Raj Kumar. She is the grandmother of accused Meenakshi @ Twinkle. She testified that Digitally signed by VANDANA SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 40 14:36:06 +0530 a quarrel took place on the roof of the house between her, Raj Kumar and daughter-in-law but she did not know the reason of quarrel. She further testified that in her presence, no castiest remarks were passed by all the accused persons upon her daughter-in-law "S". On being hostile, she was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, whereby she testified as under:-
"It is correct that from the very beginning, all the members of my family had a knowledge that my daughter-in-law 'S' belongs to SC community.
I had not stated in my statement mark PW9/A to the police that from the beginning, my elder son Raj Kumar, his wife Urmila @ Anita and their children used to pass castiest remarks upon my daughter- in-law 'S' with the intention to humiliate her.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement mark PW9/A to the police that from the very beginning, my elder son Raj Kumar, his wife Urmila @ Anita and their children used to pass castiest remarks upon my daughter-in-law 'S' with the intention to humiliate her.
I had also not stated in my statement mark PW9/A to the police that on 17.06.2016, at about 3.30/4.00 pm, when accused Raj Kumar, accused Urmila @ Anita, accused Meenakshi and Monika and Balram had passed castiest remarks upon my daughter- in-law with the intention to humiliate her and at that time I was standing there or that I alongwith my daughter-in-law 'S' were present in the house, while accused Raj Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:36:11 +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 40 Kumar and his family were passing the castiest remarks while standing on the roof of the house.
It is wrong to suggest that I had also stated in my statement mark PW9/A to the police that on 17.06.2016, at about 3:30/4:00 pm, when accused Raj Kumar, accused Urmila Anita, accused Meenakshi and Monika and Balram had passed castiest remarks upon my daughter-in-law with the intention to humiliate her and at that time I was standing there or that I alongwith my daughter-in-law Sudesh were present in the house, while accused Raj Kumar and his family were passing the castiest remarks while standing on the roof of the house.
It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused Raj Kumar and his family members, as the accused Raj Kumar is my son or that due to this reason I am not deposing true facts in the court in order to save all the accused persons from penal punishment.
It is wrong to suggest that when accused persons were passing castiest remarks upon my daughter-in-law Sudesh, at that time, I alongwith my daughter-in-law were inside the house and accused persons were passing castiest remarks upon Sudesh Kumari with intention to humiliate her. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in this regard.
(x) PW-10 is Sh. Rajesh Kumar, he is the husband of complainant. He testified that "at the time of his marriage with Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:2025.08.22 14:36:15 +0530
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 40 complainant 'S' she was widow. He further testified that the property in which he was residing, was purchased by his father and still in the name of his father. The property is measuring about 200 sq. yards. He further testified that he was residing in half portion of the property no. D-61, Yadav Nagar, Samaypur Badli, Delhi. There is a suit for partition is pending in Rohini Courts. He deposed that 15-20 neighbours of the gali were found gathered, when he came out from bathroom, on 17.06.2016. The accused were abusing castiest remarks by standing about 30 feet from the place, where his wife was standing. He deposed that police was not called and no police personnel came there. His mother was also present at the place of incident. He further deposed that he was present with his wife when his wife lodged the complaint at the police station and no other person accompanied them.
(xi) PW-11 is Smt. Shanti, She is the neighbour of complainant who has been cited eye witness but she completely turned hostile testifying that "I don't know anything about this case". She was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, whereby, she deposed as under:-
"It is correct that Rajesh Prajapati and his wife Smt. 'S' have been residing in my neighbourhood. It is not within my knowledge that if Rajesh Prajapati and his wife belongs to scheduled Caste (chamar jati). It is correct that the elder brother of Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 14:36:19 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8+0530 of 40 Rajesh Prajapati i.e. Raj Kumar has been residing in a house situated at the back side of our house. It is not within my knowledge, if their younger brother Pradeep is also residing with Raj Kumar.
It is incorrect that I had stated to the police that accused Raj Kumar had inimical terms with the family of Rajesh and his wife 'S'. It is incorrect that on 17.06.2016, at about 4.30pm, I was present in gali alongwith other ladies of the gali or that I had seen accused Raj Kumar, his wife i.e. accused Anita and their daughter and son were standing on the roof of their house or that they had used castiest remarks against 'S' Jo 'S' ko chamar keh kar gaaliyan de rahe thei".
It is wrong to suggest that they had been using the castiest remarks against 'S' earlier also.
At this stage, the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.09.2016 of the witness is read over to her and witness denied having made any such statement before the police and the said statement is now marked as Mark PW11/A where the aforesaid facts have been specifically recorded at portion A to A1. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not supported statement Mark PW11/A being won over by the accused persons or that today I am deposing wrong facts before the court today."
(xii) PW-12 is Sh. Himanshu Mehra, who is another neighbour of complainant 'S'. He testified that on 17.06.2016, during the noon hours, while he was present at his house he Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of14:36:24 40 +0530 heard some noises coming from the gali and upon hearing the said noises, he came outside his house. He saw Rajesh Kumar standing at in front of his house inside his courtyard. He further deposed that both the parties were using abusing language against each other.
He further deposed that accused Raj Kumar, Anita and Meenakshi had used abusive language i.e. castiest remarks against the wife of Sh. Rajesh Kumar. They had uttered the words in anger to the wife of Sh. Rajesh Kumar by saying "Tum scheduled caste jaati se belong karte ho". Thereafter, he went inside his house. On being partly resiling, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State whereby, he testified as under:-
"Today, I do not remember, if I had seen or heard that the accused persons were saying again and again the words "chamari-
chamari" to the wife of Sh. Rajesh Kumar or that they were saying "chamari-chamari aa gayi" or that they had used the said words repeatedly.
At this stage, the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 10.09.2016 of the witness is read over to him and witness even after hearing the said statement submits that he does not remember today if the accused persons had used the aforesaid words. Confronted with the statement Mark PW12/A from portion A to A1 where it is so specifically recorded. It is correct that many of the residents i.e. Shanti Devi, Roshni Devi, Dhanpati aunty were present in the gali and intervened and were making accused persons understand Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:2025.08.22
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:36:29 +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 40 for not using abusive language against the family of Sh. Rajesh.
I do not remember today if when accused persons were using castiest remarks, the wife of Rajesh and their children were weeping or that I had seen accused Raj Kumar picking the brick and table or threatening the family of Rajesh with the said objects.
At this stage, the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 10.09.2016 of the witness is read over to him and witness even after hearing the said statement submits that he does not remember today if the accused persons had used the aforesaid words. Confronted with the statement Mark PW12/A from portion B to B1 where it is so specifically recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not supported all the contents of statement Mark PW12/A being won over by the accused persons or that today I am deposing wrong facts before the court today.
It is correct that I also belong to scheduled caste."
(xiii) PW-13 is Sh. Pradeep Kumar. He is the brother of accused Raj Kumar. He testified that on 17.06.2016, during the noon hours, while he was present at his house, he heard some noises coming from the gali and upon hearing the said noises, he came outside his house. He saw Rajesh Kumar standing at in front of their house inside the courtyard. He also saw his bhabhi 'S' present over the roof of their house and was drying the washed clothes. He also saw accused Raj Kumar, Anita @ Digitally signed by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2025.08.22 14:36:33 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 40 Urmila and Meenakshi @ Twinkle, standing over the balcony of their roof. All the accused persons were using castiest remarks against his bhabhi i.e. against 'S'. They were using the words "Churi-chamari" and also using abusive language against his bhabhi. They were also threatening his bhabhi and said "Churi- chamari, hum tujhe ghar se nikal kar hi manege". Even earlier also they had been using castiest remarks against his bhabhi. He further deposed that while using the castiest remarks, accused Raj Kumar had also picked up one stool and threw the said stool towards his bhabhi 'S' but as she was at some distance away, the said stool could not struck her. Many of the neighbours had also gathered there and they had also requested accused persons for not using the said castiest remarks, but they had not heard of them.
(xiv) PW-14 is Smt. Manju. She is the neighbour of complainant. She did not utter even a single incriminating word against accused persons. On being hostile, she was cross examined By Ld. Addl. PP, whereby she deposed as under:-
"It is wrong to suggest that there used to be a tussle in between Rajesh and Rajender as Rajesh has performed marriage with a girl of SC Community or that accused Raj Kumar, his wife and their children had used castiest remarks against Smt. 'S' or that on 17.06.2016, in between 3.30 to 4.00 pm, accused Raj Kumar, his wife and their children had used castiest remarks by saying Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date: 2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:36:39 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12+0530 of 40 "chamar chamar" to Smt. Sudesh or that at that time I was present in the gali or that Raj Kumar and his brother on the roof of their house.
At this stage, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.09.2016 which is now marked as Mark PW14/A is read over to the witness and witness denied having made any such statement before the police. Confronted with the statement Mark PW14/A from portion A to A1 where it is so recorded."
(xv) PW-15 Smt. Dhanpati is another neighbour of complainant, but she also did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. She was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP, whereby, she deposed as under:-
"It is wrong to suggest that it is within my knowledge that Smt. 'S' is SC by caste. It is wrong to suggest that on 17.06.2016 while I alongwith Shanti and Kamla were present in gali, on that day, in between 3.30 to 4.00 pm, accused Raj Kumar, his wife, their three daughters and son had been using castiest remarks against Smt. 'S' "Chamar chamar keh kar gaaliyan de rahe thei" or that the accused persons had been using the said language against Smt. 'S' earlier also or that accused Raj Kumar and his family members had used the said castiest remarks while standing on the roof of their house and were also using abusive language or that they had used the said castiest remarks in my presence.
At this stage, the statement mark PW15/A is read over to the witness and witness denied Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 14:36:43 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 40 +0530 having made any such statement before the police or having witnesses any such occurrence. Confronted with the statement mark PW15/A from portion A to A1 where the aforesaid facts have been specifically recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not supporting statement mark PW15/A being won over by the accused persons."
(xvi) PW-16 is HC Santu Lal Sharma, he deposed that on 26.10.2016, he joined the investigation with IO/ACP Vikram Singh and Ct. Rajbir Singh in the present case. Accused Raj Kumar S/o late Sh. Ram Chand came to the office of ACP and he was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW 8/A bearing his signature at point B. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo already Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point B. The accused made disclosure statement already Ex. PW8/C bearing his signature at point B. The accused was present. The accused Raj Kumar was medically examined in Dr. BSA hospital. The accused was produced in the Rohini Court and sent to JC.
(xvii) PW-17 Insp. Ravi Kumar, deposed that on 06.08.2016, he received a complaint already Ex. PW7/B alongwith the covering letter from National Commission for Scheduled Caste already Ex. PW4/A. It is further deposed by him that he made inquiry on the basis of the complaint already Ex.
Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:36:47 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 40 +0530 PW7/B and during inquiry, he recorded statement of 'S' already Ex. PW7/A bearing his signature at point B. On the basis of statement of complainant, he prepared rukka Ex. PW17/A registration of FIR, since it was a case under Prevention of Atrocities against SC/ST Act, the further investigation of the present case was marked to ACP (S.P. Badli Division) Sh. Sukant Ballabh.
(xviii) PW-18 Sh. Lokesh Punia. He deposed that he is Section Engineer in DMRC, Delhi Metro. He has 08 sisters. Now one has expired. His sister 'S" is at SI No. 5 in all his sisters.
Marriage of his sister 'S' was solemnized in the year 2003 with Sh. Rajesh. It was her love marriage. It was further deposed by him that at that time there was no caste certificate of his sister. They belong to SC community. In the investigation of the present case, he had given the photocopy of his caste certificate to the IO, which is already Mark A. He further deposed that his sister 'S' used to talk to him and she frequently told him that her brother-in-law (jeth) Raj Kumar, her sister-in-law/(jethani) and their son and daughters used to comment casteist remarks upon her and used to abuse her. His sister 'S' many times requested her in laws not to say casteist remarks to her but they did not mend their ways. Thereafter, his sister made a complaint to the police official. He was inquired by the police officials. All the accused persons Raj Kumar (jeth), Anita @ Urmila (jethani) and Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date: 2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:36:52 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of +0530 40 Meenakshi @ Twinkle were correctly identified by him.
(xix) PW DCP Sukant Shailja Ballabh DCP Security, Delhi Police (wrongly mentioned as PW-18). He deposed that on 06.08.2016, a complaint was received at PS S.P. Badli from National Commission for Schedule Caste. It was further deposed by him that the said complaint was marked to Inspector Ravi Kumar for inquiry. The statement of the complainant 'S' was recorded by him which is Ex. PW7/A. It was further deposed by him that on 10.08.2016, a case was registered on the above said complaint and marked to him for investigation. He telephonically contacted the complainant and demanded relevant documents in the present case. It was further deposed by him that on 20.08.2016, complainant alongwith her husband came at his office. He recorded the supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant. He examined the husband of the complainant and also recorded is statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. But, somehow, both of them did not produce their caste certificate on that day.
It was further deposed by him that on 21.08.2016, complainant and her husband again came to his office and show him the caste certificate of her brother Lokesh Punia, which was seen and returned back and requested to produce her own caste certificate. It was deposed further that he examined Himanshu Digitally signed by VANDANA SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 40 14:36:56 +0530 Mehra and Pardeep Kumar on 10.09.2016 and recorded their statement at his office. Further, it was deposed by him that on 13.09.2016, he visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of public witnesses namely Shanti, Manju, Kamla and Dhanpati.
(xx) PW-19 DCP Vikram Singh, DCP Traffic, Central Range, Delhi deposed that on 30.09.2016, he was posted as ACP, S.P. Badli, Delhi. It was deposed by him that after transfer of DCP Sukant Selja Ballabh, he initiated further investigation in the present case. After perusal of the file, he added Section 3(1)
(r) SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused persons. He had obtained 03 weeks extension from the concerned Special Court of SC/ST Act for filing the chargesheet. He had requested to the complainant to submit her caste certificate for further investigation in this case. Accordingly, complainant 'S' submitted her caste certificate alongwith covering letter which is already Ex. PW7/D and the copy of her caste certificate 'S' is already Ex. PW3/A. He had issued a letter to SDM Alipur Delhi for verification of caste certificate of Ms. 'S' and the letter is Ex. PW19/A bearing his signature at point A. After that he had received the caste verification report of 'S' from the SDM Alipur, Delhi and the report is Ex. PW19/B. As per the caste certificate and verification report complainant 'S' belongs to Scheduled Caste.
Digitally signed by VANDANAVANDANA Date:
2025.08.22SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:36:59 +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 40 It was deposed further that on 15.10.2016, he went to the place of incident i.e. D-61, Yadav Nagar, S.P. Badli, Delhi. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex. PW19/C bearing his signature at point A. When he was preparing the site plan, both the parties i.e. complainant and accused persons were present there. He recorded the supplementary statement of complainant. He also made inquiry from the accused persons to know their version. He also recorded statement of mother-in-law of complainant. He had issued notice to Principal of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, Badli, Delhi for obtaining the age proof of accused persons Meenakshi Raj, Monika Raj and Balram and the notice is Ex.PW19/D bearing his signature at point A. He had received the age proof of accused persons from the Principal of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, Badli, Delhi. As per the age proof and report, Balram and Monika Raj were minor. He had called accused Raj Kumar in ACP office, PS KNK Marg to join the investigation in the present case. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar came to ACP office and he was examined him and recorded his disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW8/C bearing his signature at point C. He arrested accused Raj Kumar. He prepared the arrest and personal search memo of accused Raj Kumar which is already Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B, both bearing his signature at point A. Accused Raj Kumar was correctly identified by him.
It was deposed further that after medical Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 14:37:03 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 40+0530 examination at BSA Hospital, accused Raj Kumar was produced before the Hon'ble Special Court and he was sent to JC. Thereafter, he again submitted an application before the Special Court for seeking two days extension. On 05.11.2016, he along with his police staff again visited the place of incident D-61, Yadav Nagar, S.P. Badli, Delhi and he called JWO SI Sachin Mann and W/Ct. Papita to join the investigation at the spot. After their arrival, he prepared the apprehension memo of CCL 'B' which is marked as Mark B bearing his signature at point X. He also prepared the social background report which is marked as Mark B-1 bearing his signature at point X. He also prepared undertaking of guardian which is marked as Mark B-2. He also prepared apprehension memo of CCL 'MR' which is marked as Mark M-1 bearing his signature at point X. He also prepared the social background report which is marked as Mark M-2 bearing his signature at point X. He also prepared undertaking of guardian which is marked as Mark M-3. He also recorded the version of CCL 'B' which is marked as Mark B-3. He also recorded the version of CCL 'MR' which is marked as Mark M-4. He handed over the custody of CCLs B and MR to their maternal grandfather in presence of their mother. On 07.11.2016, PIR was submitted before the JJB Board in respect of CCL 'B' and 'MR'. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge- sheet.
Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:37:07 +0530 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 40
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C After closure of PE, the statement of the accused Raj Kumar was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 30.08.2025 and statement of remaining two accused persons namely Anita @ Urmila and Meenakshi @ Twinkle were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
on 22.10.2025, in which the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons was put to them, in which, the defence of the accused persons was that they had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. They also stated that the entire evidence appearing against them was false.
The accused persons moved an application under section 315 Cr.P.C for examining accused Raj Kumar as a defence witness and for summoning other witnesses. Prayer of accused Raj Kumar examining himself as a defence witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was disallowed vide order dated 06.06.2025, however, the same was allowed only with respect to the witnesses mentioned at serial no. 2, 3 and 4, but, no DE was led by the accused persons despite opportunity given and in fact, vide joint statement dated 01.08.2025, the accused persons chose to close DE.
6. ARGUMENTS I have heard Sh. Girish Giri, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Sanjay Sharma & Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Counsels for all the three accused persons. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:37:11 +0530 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 40 The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that PW-10 and PW-13 examined in this case are interested witnesses being husband and brother in law of complainant. He further argued that all public/independent witnesses have not uttered anything incriminating against the accused persons. It was further argued that entire story is false and concocted. It is further argued that FIR was not lodged on the spot immediately after the incident. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that one property dispute is going on between the parties and in order to pressurize the accused persons, the complainant filed the present false case. On the basis of the above arguments, he prayed acquittal for all the accused persons.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has vehemently opposed the above contentions, stating that the complainant, her husband i.e. PW-10 and brother in law of the complainant i.e. PW-13 as well as one public witness i.e. PW-12 Sh. Hinanshu Mehra has duly supported the case of the prosecution. It was further argued that there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony, hence, it was argued by him that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Observations & Findings:-
7. Before discussing the case in hand in the light of the material available on record and the testimony of the witnesses, Digitally signed by I VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:37:17 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 40 would like to reproduce the relevant law which is as under:-
"3. (1) whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-........
(r) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe in any place within public view;
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
8. With regard to the explanation qua "public view", it has been held in W.P. (Crl.) 3083/2016 decided on 03.07.2017, titled as Gayatri Vs. State and Ors. that:-
"15. Basic ingredients for the above said offence, 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 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 Digitally signed by VANDANA SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 40 14:37:22 +0530 present....."
"In the present case, we are concerned with the first two ingredients and it emerges therefrom that a case would fall under the first sub-section only when the person making the derogatory utterance knows that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating in the name of the caste was a member of SC or ST. If he had no knowledge of his caste status, the offence under sub-section (1) (x) { now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016}, would not be constituted. Similarly if his utterance was not directed against a member of SC/ST in contradiction to a group of members of SC/ST or the community as a whole, it would not again make out an offence under sub section (1) (x) {now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016}. The word "a member" occurring in the provision assumes crucial importance in this context and leaves no scope for doubt that it must be directed against the individual member and not against a group of members or the crowd or the public in general though these may comprise of SC/ST. If it is made in generalized terms against all and sundry and it is not individual specific in the name of caste, if would not make out an offence under the sub-section, the rationale being that intentional insult, intimidation and humiliation made in the name of caste was liable to be caused to a person and in this case to an individual member of SC/ST and not to a group of members or public in Digitally signed by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2025.08.22 14:37:26 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 40 general.
Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State 109 (2004) DLT 915 was a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge on a reference being made to him on account of a difference of opinion between two learned judges constituting the Division Bench. The learned single Judge Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, J. concurred with the view of B.A. Khan, J and disagreed with the view of V.S. Aggarwal J. Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Aggarwal J. approved the following observation of B.A. Khan, J. stating that in his opinion:
"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 (1) (x) { now 3(1)
(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016}, an accused must know that victim belongs to SC/ST caste and he must intentionally insult, intimidate 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".
S.K. Aggarwal, J. proceeded to examine the meaning of the expression "public view" used in section 3(1) (x) {now 3(I)
(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016},) of the SC/ST Act. He referred to the meaning of Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:37:31 +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 40 the word "public" found in legal dictionaries, and also referred to the statement of Object and Reasons of the SC/ST Act. After analyzing the provisions of the SC/ST Act and in particular sub- clause (X) of Section 3 (1) { now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016}, of the said Act-which makes "utterances punishable", he observed:
"The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', "Intimidation" and "humiliation" of a member of the Scheduled Casts of 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 at the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3
(i) (x) {now 3(i)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016}, 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, would persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned Mr. Justice B.A Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under:- Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. 14:37:36 Page No. 25 of 40 +0530 "I accordingly hold that expression within "public view" occurring in section 3 (1) (x) { now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016 }, 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 stranger 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 comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view, within the meaning of the expression used.
Further, it has been held in W.P (Crl) no. 1593/2006 and Crl. M.A. No. 6859/2006, decided on 09.01.2009, titled as Ashwani Kumar vs. State and Anr. as under:-
"Proposition of law thus is clear. Simply because section 3 (1) (x) {now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016}, of SC/ST Act finds mention in the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to conclude that prima facie an offence under the alone said Section of SC/ST Act has been made out. Judicial scrutiny of the documents in such like cases is permissible to evaluate whether the material relied upon by the prosecution revealed that existence of basic ingredients of the offence or not. For that limited purpose, the Court can sift and weigh the material placed before it, before examining the Digitally signed by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:37:41 +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 40 question whether on the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie any offence under section 3(1) (x) { now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016},act is made out.
As an adjective, 'public' would have meaning upon the subjects to which it is applied. SC/ST Act has been enacted with a view to protect a weaker section of the Society from various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against SC/STs which find enumeration in section 3 of the SC/ST Act as Constituting an offence court has to keep in mind that offence under the SC/ST Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishment an therefore, stronger proof is required, Court has to adopt an interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief which might have been played and advances the object of the Act. Therefore, 'public view' appearing in section 3(1) (x) { now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016}, of SC/ST Act has to be interpreted to mean the presence of the public persons, however small may be, and those persons are 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 have to be excluded from the definition of 'public view'.
I accordingly hold that expression within 'public view' occurring in Section 3 (1) (x) { now 3(1)(r) after amendment which was made effective from 26.01.2016 }, of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 14:37:45 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 40 +0530 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 comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used.
Public view envisages that public persons present there should be independent, impartial and not having any commercial or business relationship, or other linkage with the complainant. It would also not include persons who have any previous enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. However, merely because a witness, who is otherwise neutral or impartial and who happens to be present at the house of the victim, by itself, cannot be disqualified."
9. Now the issue arises for consideration is whether on a reading of the complaint/FIR in question, it could be said that the same discloses facts sufficient to constitute the offence, in the light of the essential requirement that the intentional insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate should take place in any place within public view.
10. The case of the prosecution is based upon the Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:37:49 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 40 complaint Ex. PW7/A which is of dated 08.08.2016 was complained by the complainant that she belongs to schedule case and she married with a person namely Rajesh in the month of September, 2003 and it was an inter caste marriage. The elder brother of her husband namely Raj Kumar and other family members did not accept and used to say ill words against her. It has been further complained that when she alongwith her husband started constructing their house, then, her brother in law Raj Kumar, sister in law Urmila @ Anita, their son Balram, Daughters Twinkle and Monika started quarelling with them. On 17.06.2016, at about 03.30 - 04.00 p.m., all of them, abused her and insulted complainant S, who is a member of SC/ST Community by passing castiest remarks by calling her as 'Chamari-Chamari' in the street where number of persons were gathered. Being aggrieved by above said Act, she filed the complaint.
11. She has further deposed that she again made a complaint before the Chairman SC Commission, Khan Market i.e. Ex. PW7/C which is of dated 01.07.2016. It has been further testified by her that an FIR No. 642/16 at PS S.P.Badli under section 354C/34 IPC was also registered on her complaint. It has been further deposed by her that one complaint dated 17.06.2016 was also made by her to the SHO PS S.P. Badli.
Digitally signed by VANDANA Date:VANDANA 2025.08.22 14:37:53 +0530 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 40
12. From the above, testimony of the complainant 'S', it is evident that some issue would must have been cropped up between the parties during that period because all the complaints are within the short period of 2 months of the year 2016. Ex. PW7/B is the first complaint filed by the complainant 'S'. In the said complaint, she made a general allegations against the accused persons stating that, "they try to humiliate me by calling me by my caste 'Chamar' and also used dirty words". This complaint does not reveal any incident took place on that particular date. Even, in the complaint, made by her to the SC Commission which is of dated 01.07.2016, all the allegations are general in nature. Not even a single specific incident has been stated. In fact, the alleged incident of dated 17.06.2016 was also not disclosed therein.
13. Now coming to the complaint dated 08.08.2016, on which, the present FIR was registered Ex. PW7/A, only in this complaint, for the first time, she has made a specific allegation, stating that on 17.06.2016, at about 03.30 - 04.00 p.m., all of them, abused her and insulted complainant S, who is a member of SC/ST Community by passing castiest remarks by calling her as 'Chamari-Chamari' in the street where number of persons were gathered.
14. It is pertinent to note here that, as above stated the Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:37:57 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 40 +0530 complaint which was made on 17.06.2016 by the complainant does not mention the fact that on that particular date any such incident had taken place. Further, the above said complaint is a hand written complaint which was filed by the complainant in the Police station Samaypur Badli. She has categorically deposed that, she visited the police station at about 06.00 p.m, though the alleged incident is of 03.30 p.m. - 04.00 p.m. Admittedly, she did not make any call at 100 number at the time of incident. Apparently, after taking a gap of 2 hours, she went to the police station and filed a complaint, but, as discussed above, this complaint does not mention the alleged incident which allegedly took place on 17.06.2016. Therein, she has made general allegation that accused persons humiliate her by passing castiest remarks by calling her by her caste Chamar, but, as such, not even a single complaint is there prior to the above incident in this regard, though the marriage of the complainant with Sh. Rajesh Kumar is an old marriage which is of September, 2003. Since September, 2003 till 2015, not even a single complaint was made by the complainant in this regard.
15. Further, in the complaint dated 17.06.2016, the complainant has complained that, "today also, for no reason Raj Kumar and his wife and their daughters Twinkle and Monika abused me a lot. Raj Kumar has a license gun. Urmila has given me a threat they will shoot me and my husband." It is evident Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. 14:38:02 Page No. 31 of 40 +0530 that the complainant did not complaint any act of castiest remarks by the accused persons on that day.
16. The probative force of this witness /complainant is greatly diminish due to fact that she had an axe to grind against accused persons as during the relevant period of time dispute over property was going on between the parties. In fact, she has categorically stated therein that, "in our premises, unauthorized construction was done by elder brother of my husband. Despite of telling many times, he has not vacated our premises. The property bearing no. D-61, is divided into 2 equal parts of 100 sq feet. One part is owned and occupied by Raj Kumar and another part is owned by and occupied by her family. As our part is old construction of mud, has fear of collapse any time. Due to this reason, we started construction our land. But from the day 1, Raj Kumar and his wife Urmila and their children without no reason, create trouble and quarrel".
17. Further, PW-7, on being cross-examined, duly admitted that a civil case of partition is pending between them. The above said fact has been confirmed by her husband PW-10 and her mother in law i.e. PW-9. Though, the complainant has denied the suggestion that the accused persons objected the renovation of the property by the complainant as the property belongs to the father of accused Raj Kumar and her husband Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 32 of 14:38:06 40 +0530 Rajesh. But, PW-9, mother in law categorically testified that, the property where all of them are residing is a joint property.
18. The complainant further duly admitted that prior to present incident, no complaint or FIR was registered against the accused persons. This itself reflects the reason why all the complaints by the complainant were made within short span of two months.
19. PW-10 is a husband of the complainant S, he testified that the accused Raj Kumar and his wife were passing castiest remarks upon his wife by saying, "chudi, chamari", with the intention to humiliate her in a public place within a public view and they were saying the aforesaid words again and again, while children of accused Raj Kumar and Anita were abusing my wife".
20. At first, PW-10 Rajesh Kumar did not make any allegation against the accused Meenakshi @ Twinkle passing of any castiest remarks which is in direct contradiction with the testimony of PW7/ complainant. He duly admitted the pendency of the partition suit amongst them. He further testified that his mother was present at the time of incident but when his mother was examined as PW-9, she testified not even a single word against the accused persons. She categorically testified that, "in Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 2025.08.22 14:38:10 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 33 of 40+0530 my presence, no castiest remarks were passed by all the accused persons upon my daughter in law 'S'."
21. On being confronted by the Ld. Addl. PP she categorically denied that on the date of alleged incident any castiest remarks were passed by the accused persons upon the complainant. She further denied that even prior to alleged incident any such castiest remarks were complained by the complainant against accused persons.
22. Complainant and her husband have testified that apart from Smt. Laxmi, mother-in-law of the complainant, there were other public witnesses as well.
23. Now let us consider the testimony of remaining 4 public witnesses.
24. PW-11 Smt. Shanti, she has been cited as eye witness to the incident but she did not utter even a single word deposing that she does not know anything about the case. On being cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP, she testified as under:-
"It is correct that Rajesh Prajapati and his wife Smt. 'S' have been residing in my neighbourhood. It is not within my knowledge that if Rajesh Prajapati and his wife belongs to scheduled Caste (chamar jati). It is correct that the elder brother Digitally of signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:38:14 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 34 +0530 of 40 Rajesh Prajapati i.e. Raj Kumar has been residing in a house situated at the back side of our house. It is not within my knowledge, if their younger brother Pradeep is also residing with Raj Kumar.
It is incorrect that I had stated to the police that accused Raj Kumar had inimical terms with the family of Rajesh and his wife 'S'. It is incorrect that on 17.06.2016, at about 4.30pm, I was present in gali alongwith other ladies of the gali or that I had seen accused Raj Kumar, his wife i.e. accused Anita and their daughter and son were standing on the roof of their house or that they had used castiest remarks against 'S' Jo 'S' ko chamar keh kar gaaliyan de rahe thei".
It is wrong to suggest that they had been using the castiest remarks against 'S' earlier also.
25. PW-14 is Smt. Manju, another neighbour who has been cited as public / eye witness, but she completely turned hostile and did not utter even a single word against accused persons. She was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP, whereby she has testified that as under:-
"It is wrong to suggest that there used to be a tussle in between Rajesh and Rajender as Rajesh has performed marriage with a girl of SC Community or that accused Raj Kumar, his wife and their children had used castiest remarks against Smt. 'S' or that on 17.06.2016, in between 3.30 to 4.00 pm, accused Raj Kumar, his wife and their VANDANA Digitally signed by SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:38:18 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 35 of 40 +0530 children had used castiest remarks by saying "chamar chamar" to Smt. Sudesh or that at that time I was present in the gali or that Raj Kumar and his brother on the roof of their house.
26. One more neighbour Smt. Dhanpati examined as PW-15, who has also been cited as public / eye witness, but she completely turned hostile and deposed nothing incriminating against the accused persons. She was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP, whereby she has testified that as under:-
"It is wrong to suggest that it is within my knowledge that Smt. 'S' is SC by caste. It is wrong to suggest that on 17.06.2016 while I alongwith Shanti and Kamla were present in gali, on that day, in between 3.30 to 4.00 pm, accused Raj Kumar, his wife, their three daughters and son had been using castiest remarks against Smt. 'S' "Chamar chamar keh kar gaaliyan de rahe thei" or that the accused persons had been using the said language against Smt. 'S' earlier also or that accused Raj Kumar and his family members had used the said castiest remarks while standing on the roof of their house and were also using abusive language or that they had used the said castiest remarks in my presence.
27. Apart from the above, there is one more neighbour who was examined as PW-12, whose name is Sh. Himanshu Mehra. He testified that, "in my presence, accused Raj Kumar, Anita, Meenkashi used abusive languages i.e. castiest remarks Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:38:23 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 36 of 40 against the wife of Sh. Rajesh Kumar i.e. complainant 'S'. They had uttered the word in anger to the wife of the Sh. Rajesh Kumar by saying, 'tum scheduled caste jati se belong karte ho', thereafter, I went inside my house and except the above, I do not know anything". When he was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP, he deposed as under:-
"Today, I do not remember, if I had seen or heard that the accused persons were saying again and again the words "chamari-
chamari" to the wife of Sh. Rajesh Kumar or that they were saying "chamari-chamari aa gayi" or that they had used the said words repeatedly.......
I do not remember today if when accused persons were using castiest remarks, the wife of Rajesh and their children were weeping or that I had seen accused Raj Kumar picking the brick and table or threatening the family of Rajesh with the said objects......."
28. Therefore, as it is evident that the above said witness also did not support the case of the prosecution. Merely, saying that, "tum scheduled caste jati se belong karte ho" does not mean passing of castiest remarks. In fact the above said phrase was not used by the complainant or her husband in their testimony or anywhere in her complaint, therefore, it goes contrary to their testimony. The above said witness categorically denied having heard the words 'chamari chamari' from the accused persons for the complainant 'S'. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:38:27 +0530 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 37 of 40
29. There are two other witnesses one is PW-18 Sh. Lokesh Punia, he is the brother of complainant and anther one is Sh. Pardeep Kumar i.e. PW-13 who is brother in law of the complainant.
30. As discussed above, it is settled preposition of law that public view envisages that public persons present there should be independent, impartial and not having any commercial or business relationship, or other linkage with the complainant. It would also not include persons who have any previous enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. However, merely because a witness, who is otherwise neutral or impartial and who happens to be present at the house of the victim, by itself, cannot be disqualified.
31. As stated above, PW-18 is the real brother of the complainant S. Therefore, his testimony is not of any use so far as "public view" is concerned. Further, he is merely a hearsay witness who has not witnessed any such alleged incident. In fact, he categorically admitted that, "it is correct that the accused persons did not comment any castiest remarks to my sister in my presence".
32. So far as testimony of another witness namely Sh. Pardeep Kumar / PW-13, is concerned, he is the brother in law of Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 14:38:32 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 38 of 40 the complainant S. Therefore, he is closely related to complainant 'S'. Apart from the above, admittedly, one suit for partition is pending amongst them, pendency of which, was duly admitted by this witness as well. Therefore, his testimony can't be said to be impartial or independent as he is closely related to the complainant and also has interest in deposing in favour of the complainant. Even otherwise, he is biased witness as it is an admitted fact that a civil suit for partition is pending amongst them. Besides the above, in his testimony he has deposed that, "on 17.06.2016, during the noon hours, while he was present at his house, he heard some noises coming from the gali and upon hearing the said noises, he came outside his house. He heard the accused persons using abusive language against his bhabhi. They were also threatening his bhabhi and said "Churi-chamari, hum tujhe ghar se nikal kar hi manege". But surprisingly, the complainant did not depose anything regarding above allegation. Rather, it is in contradiction with the testimony of the complainant.
CONCLUSION
33. From the aforesaid discussions, allegations against accused persons are not proved. Accordingly, the accused persons stand acquitted for the offences, they have been charged with. Bail bond of the accused persons stand cancelled and their surety are discharged. Documents of the surety, if any retained on Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2025.08.22 SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli 14:38:35 +0530 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39 of 40 record, be released to them, on appropriate application being moved by them.
34. The accused persons had already furnished their bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C, which will remain valid for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
35. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by VANDANA Date:
VANDANA 2025.08.22 14:38:40 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Vandana) Court on 22.08.2025 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 40 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 59430/2016 , FIR No. 704/2016 PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 40 of 40