Delhi District Court
Nakku Ram Yadav vs State (Delhi Administration) on 30 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH, ASJ02/FTC,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0369902009
CC No. 3/11
State
versus
1. Nakku Ram Yadav,
S/o Sh. Balli Ram Yadav,
R/o 17, Kalibari Apartments,
Uddayan Marg,
New Delhi. ....... (A1)
2. Ram Charan Singh,
S/o Sh. B.R. Singh,
R/o 10/136, G. Point,
Gole Daakhana, New Delhi. ....... (A2)
3. Ram Nawal,
S/o Sh. Ram Surat,
R/o 3/43 G Point,
President Estate,
R.P. Bhawan, New Delhi. ....... (A3)
4. Namwar,
S/o Sh. Ramsurat,
R/o PocketI,
Quarter No. 91,
Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. ....... (A4)
C. C. No. 3/11 1/22
FIR No. : 63/05
U/s : 3(1) (x) r/w section 3 (2) (VII) of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
323/506/34 IPC.
PS : Chanakyapuri
Date of institution of the case : 12.10.2007
Date when the case reserved for judgement : 18.01.2012
Date of announcement of judgment : 30.01.2012
JUDGEMENT
Complainant Ramjit filed a complaint u/s 323/506/120B IPC and section 3 (x) of SC &ST Act 1989 before the Ld. MM, New Delhi, u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C for issuing direction to SHO concerned to register the FIR and investigate the case against the accused persons, stating therein that accused no. 1 is working as the head of the complainant/applicant at Rashtrapati Bhawan, the accused no. 2 is also the employee at Rashtrapati Bhawan as Maali, accused no. 3 and accused n o. 4 are also working at Rashtrapati Bhawan. Accused no. 1 is the head of all the accused no. 2 to 4 and accused no. 1 assigned the work to accused no. 2 to 4 and the applicant and he also mark the attendance. On 05.09.2004, SO, P.N. Joshi was on leave and accused no. 1 Nakku Ram Yadav was assigning the work to gardeners working C. C. No. 3/11 2/22 there. The complainant was assigned the work, but his signatures were not marked by the accused no. 1 and accused no. 1 scribbled the presence of the complainant on the blank paper and when complainant made inquiry as to why his attendance was not marked as per rules, then the accused got infuriated and abused the complainant saying "ye chamar saala jamin par bojh hai" and hearing this argument between the accused and the complainant, accused no. 2 to 4 also came there and they started beating the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he fell unconscious and he was rushed to RML Hospital, where his MLC was done and he was discharged. The complainant/applicant stated in the complaint, filed before the magistrate, that he went to police station to get his case registered and investigated, but the police refused to register the case, saying that "ye Rashtrapati Bhawan ka mamla hai, tum log khud hi sulto". The complainant further alleged in the said application that when he was returning from the police station, accused no. 1 alongwith accused no. 2 to 4 threatened him to face dire consequences and said that "police to hamari hai, tere thane jaane se kuch nahi hoga". The complainant also made complaint by registered post to Commissioner of Police, DCP, ACP and SHO of the concerned police station. He has also made complaint to SC/ST Commission. The complainant stated in his complaint that accused no. 1 is harbouring an illwill against the C. C. No. 3/11 3/22 complainant and on several occasion made castiest remarks against the complainant. The complainant further alleged in his complaint given before the magistrate that the accused persons in collusion with the police officials got a false complaint lodged against the complainant and notice under section 107 Cr.P.C was issued against the complainant before the SEM.
Ld. Magistrate directed the SHO, Chankiya Puri, New Delhi to register the FIR under the appropriate provisions of law and further directed to file the status report. Thereafter, the police registered the case FIR No. 63/05 in PS Chankya Puri under section 3 (x) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and under section 323/506/120 B IPC and the investigation was assigned to ACP Madan Mohan during the course of investigation ACP went to the garden near Rashtrapati Bhawan and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan of the spot. He also recorded the supplementary statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C IO ACP Madan Mohan has verified the caste certificate produced by the complainant from the Divisional Commissioner office and caste certificate was found genuine. Thereafter, he has recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses Jagpal, Rakesh Kumar, Ram Gopal, Ram Ashrey. During the course of investigation the police has obtained the attested attendance register dated 05.09.2004, of dalikhana nursery from the Establishment Branch of Rashtrapati C. C. No. 3/11 4/22 Bhawan. Thereafter, police also obtained the photocopy of the attendance register dated 05.09.2004 of Mugal garden and other places. The police has also obtained the attested copy of extra duty form. During the course of investigation police has inquired from other guarders who were stated to be present on the day of incident. During investigation inquiry was made from SI Erush Tigga, PS Chanakyapuri, who had made inquiries regarding the complaint of complainant before the registration of the FIR in this case and SI Erush Tigga disclosed that complainant had given the complaint for the day of incident but the complainant had not disclosed regarding the castiest remarks against the complainant by the accused persons. SI Erush Tigga had given the MLC and photocopy of the statement of the complainant to ACP Madan Mohan. After completion of investigation the police has filed the challan against all the accused persons.
After compliance of the provision of section 207 & 208 Cr.P.C, Ld. MM committed the case to the court of sessions.
After being heard the accused as well as Ld. Spl. PP for the state and counsel for accused, charges u/s 323/506/34 IPC were ordered to be framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 07.04.2008. A separate charge punishable u/s 3(1) (x) r/w section 3 (2) (vii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was ordered to be framed against the accused Nakku Ram Yadav. C. C. No. 3/11 5/22 All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
To bring home its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in all, namely, PW 1 Dig Vijay Singh, PW 2 ASI Rajender Singh Saini, PW 3 Rakesh Kumar, PW 4 Jagpal, PW 5 Ramjit, PW 6 Raj Kumar, PW 7 Ram Gopal, PW 8 Rtd. ACP Madan Mohan, PW 9 NC Biswas and PW 10 Ram Ashray.
PW1 Dig Vijay Singh is a formal witness who had brought the original caste certificate issuing register for the year September 1971 to 31.12.1971. As per entry bearing no. 5868 caste certificate was issued to Ramjit. He has proved the photocopy of the entry of the register as Ex.PW1/A. PW 2 ASI Rajender Singh Saini is also a formal witness who had registered the FIR no. 63/05 and he had proved the same as Ex.PW2/A. PW 3 Rakesh Kumar stated that on 05.09.2004 in between 08:00 to 08:30 P.M, he was present in the Mugal Garden of Rastrapati Bhawan as he was posted there as gardener. He deposed that at about 08:30 A.M, he heard the shouting of accused Nakku Ram Yadav and all other accused persons and they all were giving beatings to Ramjit. He further deposed that accused Nakku Ram Yadav was uttering "maro iss chamar ko ye sala dharti par bhoj hai " and accused persons while beating Ramjit took him towards Cycle Stand and pushed him on C. C. No. 3/11 6/22 standing Cycle and he sustained injuries on his face, head and teeth. He stated that he and other employees saved Ramjit from the accused persons and thereafter Ramjit went to RML Hospital himself and he went to his duty.
PW 4 Jagpal was also working as Senior gardener at Rastrapati Bhawan. He deposed that accused Nakku Ram Yadav started marking the attendance and he and Ramjit were standing there to mark their attendance as Sh. P.N. Joshi SO was on leave. He further deposed that accused Nakku Ram Yadav deputed him and Ramjit to collect the garbage and on this Ramjit told the accused why he was not deputed on machine where they used to work. PW4 deposed that on this issue verbal altercation taken place between accused Nakku Ram Yadav and Ramjit and accused Ram Charan Singh, Pushed Ramjit and asked him to go from there and other coaccused persons were also present there. He deposed that accused Nakku Ram Yadav uttered to the complainant "maro sale chamar ko" and on this all the four accused persons started giving beatings to Ramjit.
PW 5 Ramjit is the complainant, who deposed that on 05.02.2004, Section Officer P.N. Joshi was on leave and accused Nakku Ram Yadav was officiating. He deposed that accused Nakku Ram Yadav wrote the names of all of them and distributed work and he did not mark their attendance in the attendance register. On this, C. C. No. 3/11 7/22 complainant told accused Nakku Ram Yadav that Section Officer P.N. Joshi had assigned the duty to reach at Kothi No. 13 and 14, C2, Rashtrapati Bhawan as the grass of the lawn was to be cut with the help of machine. He further deposed that accused Nakku Ram Yadav put him, Jagpal and three other person on duty at Tata 407 a garbage truck. He stated that he asked the accused Nakku Ram Yadav to mark their attendance in the attendance register and thereafter they will perform their duties. He further deposed that when they traveled at a distance of 1015 steps the accused Nakku Ram Yadav threatened him and verbal altercation took place and accused Nakku Ram Yadav, Ram Charan Singh, Ram Nawal and Namwar started quarreling with him. He further deposed that accused Nakku Ram Yadav uttered words "maro sale chamar ko ye dharti par bhoj hai" and all the accused persons assaulted him and he fell down. He further deposed that thereafter informing his Supervisor/Chaudhary he went to RML Hospital and got medically examined and after that returned to his duty from there. He further stated that on next day he lodged complaint in his office as well as different places but no action was taken. He deposed that he went to PS to lodged the FIR but the same was not registered. PW5 had proved his original caste certificate which is exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. PW 6 Raj Kumar is a formal witness who had proved the letter C. C. No. 3/11 8/22 dated 17/18.03.2005 which is exhibited as Ex.PW6/A. He has also proved the attested copy of attendance sheet which is exhibited as Ex.PW6/B and attested copy of OTA form which is exhibited as Ex.PW6/C. PW 7 Ram Gopal deposed that on 05.09.2004, he was coming out of garden office in Rashtrapati Bhawan where number of persons present there and hot words were being exchanged. This witness stated that he does not know among whom the hot words were being exchanged. This witness categorically stated that he does not know what happened thereafter. PW7 Ram Gopal was turned hostile and cross examined by the State. In his cross examination by the State he denied the suggestion that he saw the accused persons giving beating to Ramjit.
PW 8 Rtd. ACP Madan Mohan deposed that on 10.03.2005, on the direction of Ld. MM, SHO, PS Chanakyapuri was directed to registered the case u/s 323/506/120B IPC and u/s 3 (X) SC/ST/Prevention of Atrocities Act. After the registration of the case investigation was marked to him by the order of DCP. He inspected spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/A on the pointing out of complainant. He has also recorded the statements of the PW's and collected the SC certificate Ex.PW5/A of the complainant.
PW 9 NC Biswas is a formal witness who had been deputed on C. C. No. 3/11 9/22 behalf of Dr. S.K. Sahu. This witness has proved the photocopy of MLC Ex.PW9/A and identified the signature of Dr. S.K. Sahu.
PW 10 Ram Ashray deposed that on 05.09.2004, he was present in the garden for his attendance alongwith other gardeners. He stated that after the attendance a quarrel had taken place between the accused persons and the complainant and they had started grappling with each other and also started beatings and he heard the noise of "bachao bachao". He deposed that he reached there and separated them.
In order to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence, all the incriminating evidence has been put against the accused persons, while examining them u/s 313 Cr.P.C., to which all the accused persons pleaded their innocence and submitted that they were falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Nakku Ram Yadav pleaded that he never uttered any remarks and further pleaded that it was Ramjit, who was trying assault him with grass cutting sword and he was saved by others present there.
Accused persons produced five witnesses in their defence. DW1 K.L. Jagga, under secretary Rashtrapati Bhawan, who brought the file bearing no. C16011/5/8/03establishment, which was opened on complaint received from Ramjit against the accused persons. He has produced the photostate copy of the inquiry report, which is exhibited as DW 1/A and he also produced the photocopy of the original C. C. No. 3/11 10/22 complaint dated 05.09.2004, made by Nakku Ram Yadav to the garden superintendent, which is exhibited as DW 1/B. He also produced the photocopy of the complaint made by Smt. Kamla Devi against Ramjit, which is marked as Mark DW 1/X. DW 2 Virender Singh deposed that he checked the record of reader to SHO, Chankyapuri and MHCR, Chankyapuri and he was told that the summoned record is not traceable. He further deposed that the record till 2007 has been ordered to be destroyed, but the same has not yet been destroyed. This witness has not brought anything in writing regarding nonavailablity of the record. DW 3 Vijender Singh deposed that about six years ago on 5th September, when he was present at Gate no. 8, Rashtrapati Bhawan, complainant Ramjit was abusing Nakku Ram Yadav and he also slapped accused Namwar and as Ramjit was retreating, he fell down on the cycle and thereafter, Ramjit came with the grass cutting sword. This witness stated that he snatched the sword from Ramjit and threw it away and accused Nakku Ram Yadav had not called Ramjit by his community of scheduled caste. This witness stated that he had made complaint to the PS Chankyapuri, which is marked as DW 3/A. DW 4 Vinod Pal deposed that he was present in front of nursery in Rashtrapati Bhawan on 05.09.2004 and accused Nakku Ram was taking attendance of the gardeners and distributing the work. He further deposed that many of them had left for duty alloted to them and C. C. No. 3/11 11/22 Naresh, Radhey Shyam, Jagpal were among the persons, who were still there and accused Nakku Ram deputed them for lifting the garbage, but Ramjit told him that they will not collect the garbage and will operate the machine. He stated that Jagpal gave abuses to Nakku Ram Yadav and Ramjit came rushing towards accused Nakku Ram Yadav in order to assault him. He deposed that Ramjit started giving abuses to accused Nakku Ram Yadav and Ramjit fell down on the Cycle parked over there and Ramjit told that he will get them implicated in a community case. DW4 further deposed that Ramjit brought one grass cutting sword but one of the gardener namely Bijender snatched the sword from Ramjit. This DW stated that regarding this incident he made complaint to the police and gave his statement which is mark DW4/A. DW5 Mohd. Ali deposed that on 05.09.2004, Nakku Ram Yadav had asked Radhey Shyam, Jagpal, Naresh and Ramjit to go for Matador vehicle duty but Ramjit refused to go to Matador vehicle duty and told that he will work only at residential lawns of IFA. This DW further deposed that Ramjit trying to assault accused Nakku Ram Yadav but he was stopped by Namwar and for that Ramjit slapped Namwar. DW5 further deposed that Ramjit fell on the Cycle and received minor injuries and thereafter, Ramjit brought grass cutting sword and rush towards accused Nakku Ram Yadav but he was apprehended by C. C. No. 3/11 12/22 Vijender.
I have heard the Ld. Spl. PP for the state as well as counsel for the complainant and counsel for the accused persons. Ld. Spl. PP for the state submitted that accused Nakku Ram Yadav has uttered the objectionable words to the complainant Ramjit on 05.09.2004 and accused Nakku Ram Yadav alongwith his other coaccused persons given beatings to complainant Ramjit. Ld. Spl. PP further submitted that PW3 and PW4 are material witnesses, who were present at the spot on the day of incident alongwith complainant and they narrated the entire incident and supported the prosecution case. He also submitted that PW 5, who is the complainant, had also narrated the entire incident and supported the case of the prosecution.
Ld. Spl. PP submitted that the offences punishable under section 3 (1) (X) read with section 3 (2) (vii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been established against accused Nakku Ram Yadav. He further submitted that the offences punishable u/s 323/506/34 IPC has been established against all the accused persons. The complainant has filed written arguments also. I have also gone through the written arguments and also heard the counsel for the complainant.
On the other hand, Sh. Surya Kant Singla, ld. counsel for the accused submitted that no offence is made out against the accused C. C. No. 3/11 13/22 persons. He further submitted that the complainant filed the complaint after two and a half months, after the alleged incident and in between the complainant also approached National Human Rights Commission and SC/ST Commission and both the commissions did not take any cognizance. He submitted that PW 3 and PW 4 also belongs to the SC category and the testimonies of PW 3 is different from allegations made in the complaint. He submitted that PW 3 stated that Bijender, Radhey Shyam, Ashok Kumar, Mohd. Ali, Vinod Pal, Deena Nath were also present, but Bijender, Mohd. Ali and Vinod Pal are defence witnesses. Ld. defence counsel submitted that the complainant stated in his crossexamination that he had strained relations with the accused Nakku Ram Yadav since 1989 and PW 7 did not supported the prosecutions case.
Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that no offence is made out against the accused Nakku Ram Yadav for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (X) r/w 3 (2) (vii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the prosecution has measurably failed to establish the said offence against the accused Nakku Ram Yadav. He further submitted that complainant failed to prove the alleged castiest remarks uttered by the accused against the complainant. He submitted that in the present case there was no intention to humiliate the complainant and moreover, the offence has to be committed in public view and the C. C. No. 3/11 14/22 persons, present at the spot, were coworkers and there were no independent witness or the alleged place of occurrence was also not a place, which can be termed as public view.
The Ld. counsel for the accused relied upon the case law tilted as Mukesh Kumar Saini & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration), 94 (2001) DLT 241, wherein it was observed that the basic ingredients of the offence under Clause (x) of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are : (a) that there must be an "intentional insult" or "intimidation" with "intend" to humiliate SC/ST member by a non SC/ST member, and (b) that insult must have been done in any place within the "public view". The use of expression "intentional insult or intimidation" with "intention" to humiliate, makes it abundantly clear that the mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence and it must also be established that the accused had the knowledge that the victim is the SC/ST and that the offence was committed for that reason. Merely calling a person by caste would not attract the provisions of this Act.
I have heard the arguments and gone through the record and perused the file. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW3 Rakesh Kumar, PW4 Jagpal, PW7 Ram Gopal and PW10 Ram Ashrey are the witnesses who were stated to be present at the spot on 05.09.2004 apart from the PW5 Ramjit complainant. Therefore, the C. C. No. 3/11 15/22 testimonies of PW3, PW4, PW7 and PW10 as well as the testimonies of complainant Ramjit are very crucial. PW3 deposed that at about 08:30 A.M,, he heard the shouting of all the accused persons and they all were beating Ramjit. PW3 further stated in his examinationin chief that accused Nakku Ram Yadav was uttering "maro is chamar ko ye sala dharti par bhoj hai". PW3 has stated that the accused persons pushed the complainant Ramjit on the standing Cycle and due to that he sustained injuries on his face, head and teeth. PW3 categorically stated that complainant Ramjit went to the RML Hospital himself. PW3 in his crossexamination stated that he does not know who had removed Ramjit to hospital or if someone had accompanied him to the hospital or he had gone himself, however, in his examinationinchief, he had stated that Ramjit went to the hospital himself. There is contradiction in the statements of PW 3 regarding this aspect. PW 4, who was also stated to be present at the spot on the day of incident, deposed that accused Nakku Ram uttered the words that "maaro saale chamar ko", whereas, PW 3 had stated that accused Nakku Ram uttered "maaro iss chamar ko, ye saala dharti par bhojh hai". There is a variation in the statement of PW 3 and PW 4 regarding utterance of objectionable words by the accused Nakku Ram Yadav, as PW 4 had not stated that accused also uttered the words "ye saala dharti pe bhojh hai". PW 7 Ram Gopal turned hostile and not supported the C. C. No. 3/11 16/22 proseuction case. This witness deposed that number of persons were present there, but he does not know amongst whom the hot words were being exchanged. In his crossexamination, PW 7, categorically stated that in his statement, given to the police, he had not stated to the police that the accused persons were giving beatings to Ramjit. In the cross examination by the counsel for the accused persons, PW 7 stated that he had not seen any injuries on the person of Ramjit. PW 10, Ram Ashray, who was also stated to be present at the spot, deposed that a quarrel took place between the accused persons and the complainant Ramjit and after sometime they started grappling with each other and also started giving beatings and abuses to each other. He also stated that he also heard the noise of "Bachao Bachao" and thereafter, he intervened and separated them. PW 7 and PW 10 had stated nothing about the utterance of objectionable words by the accused Nakku Ram Yadav. PW 10 Ram Ashray had not stated anything specifically regarding beating of complainant by the accused persons. The testimonies of PW 7 and PW 10 has weaken the case of the prosecution, as both these witnesses had stated nothing about the utterance of objectionable words and also giving of beatings to the complainant. Though PW 7 and PW 10 were also stated to be present at the spot alongwith PW3, PW4 and PW5, but the testimonies of PWs 7 and 10 are different then the testimonies of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5. C. C. No. 3/11 17/22 PW 5 is the complainant who stated in his deposition that when they were at the distance of 1015 paces, the accused Nakku Ram Yadav threatened him that he would see him and when the complainant came near to the accused then the accused told him that what he was looking at him and he was seeing him for last sixteen years and on that accused Nakku Ram Yadav and other accused persons started quarreling with him. No other PW had stated this version of the complainant. PW 3 and PW 4 stated that accused Nakku Ram Yadav uttered objectionable words and thereafter, accused persons started giving beatings to the complainant. Therefore, on this aspect also there is contradiction between the testimonies of PW 5 and in the testimonies of PW 3 and PW 4. The complainant, PW 5 in his crossexamination admitted that he had strained relations with accused Nakku Ram Yadav since he joined his duties in 1989. It appears that the accused and the complainant are having old enmity between them. The complainant stated that after the incident he attended his duty for sometime and thereafter, went to the RML Hospital and remained there for 45 minutes and from the hospital directly came to the office for his duty and did some light work. In his crossexamination, PW 5 had categorically stated that he had not gone to PS to lodge a report regarding the incident on 05.09.2004. However, he stated in his cross examination that SI E. Tigga had recorded his statement on 05.09.2004 C. C. No. 3/11 18/22 which is Ex.PW5/DX. PW 5 had stated in his crossexamination contradictory statement as one point he had stated that he had not gone to PS to lodge a report regarding the incident on 05.09.2004 and at other point in the crossexamination he stated that SI E. Tigga recorded his statement on 05.09.2004. He further deposed that he had not put his signature on Ex.PW5/DX, however, his signature is there on Ex.PW5/DX dated 05.09.2004. Therefore, there is contradiction in the statement of PW5 who is the complainant.
The accused persons examined five DWs. DW 3 Vijender Singh, categorically stated that complainant Ramjit was abusing accused Nakku Ram Yadav and when Ramjit was retreating he fell down on the motorcycle and after some time Ramjit came with grass cutting sword. DW 3 stated that he snatched the sword from the Ramjit and further accused Nakku Ram Yadav had not called complainant by his community of scheduled caste. DW 4, who was also stated to be present at the spot, stated that complainant came rushing towards Nakku Ram Yadav in order to assault him and also gave slap to accused Namwar. DW 4 further stated that complainant told he will implicate the accused persons in a community case. He stated that the complainant also brought one grass cutting sword after getting up from the fall of the cycle and one Vijender, who was present there, snatched the sword from Ramjit. DW5 was also stated to be present at the spot C. C. No. 3/11 19/22 on 05.09.2004. This witness deposed that Ramjit tried to assault Nakku Ram Yadav but was stopped by Namwar and complainant also slapped Namwar. He also stated that complainant Ramjit fell on the Cycle and received minor injuries and thereafter he brought grass cutting sword and rush towards Nakku Ram Yadav but was apprehended by Vijender. It has invariably come in the testimonies of the defence witnesses that in their presence no objectionable words uttered by accused Nakku Ram Yadav. The presence of defence witnesses at the spot has not disputed by the prosecution witnesses nor by the complainant. The defence witnesses who were present at the spot categorically stated that it was the complainant who tried to assault the accused Nakku Ram Yadav and even slapped the accused Namwar.
It is settled law that defence witnesses also deserves equal treatment on par with a prosecution witness. In the case of Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 911, wherein it was observed that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And Courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.
In the present case the prosecution witnesses does not appears to be truthful as there is lot of contradiction in their testimonies. C. C. No. 3/11 20/22 Moreover, PW 7 turned hostile and shattered the prosecution case. Even PW 10 had not said anything about the utterance of objectionable words by accused Nakku Ram Yadav. Further, PW 10 had not stated that accused persons had given beatings to the complainant. In his crossexamination, PW 10 had not described as to how the complainant Ramjit fell on the cycle at the cycle stand. All these discrepancies and contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were stated to be present at the spot on the day of incident goes to the root of the prosecution case and weakens the case of the prosecution, particularly, in the circumstances that PW 7 turned hostile and PW 10 stated nothing much about the incident and the DWs who were also stated to be present at the spot stated contrary to the versions of prosecution witnesses. DW's who were stated to be present at the spot had categorically deposed that it was the complainant Ramjit who tried to assault accused Nakku Ram Yadav with the grass cutting sword. Even the complainant himself stated that he had strained relations with accused Nakku Ram Yadav since he joined his duty in 1989. All these facts and circumstances, shows that there were rivalry between the complainant and accused Nakku Ram Yadav. It is amply clear that complainant and accused Nakku Ram Yadav were not having good relations. It appears that the present case is a culmination of that rivalry between the complainant and accused Nakku Ram Yadav. In C. C. No. 3/11 21/22 these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to established the offence against the accused Nakku Ram Yadav and further prosecution has failed to prove the offence against all the accused persons.
Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion and findings, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons (A1 to A4) and they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, the accused Nakku Ram Yadav (A1) is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 3 (1) (X) read with section 3 (2) (vii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The accused Nakku Ram Yadav (A1), Ram Charan Singh (A2) Ram Nawal (A3) and Namwar (A4) are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 323/506/34 IPC. All the accused persons are acquitted in this case. The previous bail bonds of accused persons are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Accused persons to furnish bail bonds in terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ each and one surety each to the like amount for the period of six months.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (LAL SINGH)
on 30th January, 2012 ASJ02/FTC, PHC/ND
30.01.2012
C. C. No. 3/11 22/22