Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Jagir Singh on 5 September, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM-A-949-MA-2013 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-949-MA-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 05, 2014
Darshan Singh
...... Appellant
Versus
Jagir Singh
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
***
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
Present : Mr. Shashi Kant Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 7.6.2013 passed by the Judge Special Court, Amritsar, whereby a complaint under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Cast & Schedule Tribes (Prevention & Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 506 of the IPC was dismissed and the accused was acquitted.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant-Darshan Singh belongs to Mazbi Caste community & resident of the same village where the respondent resides. Respondent is employed as Constable in Punjab Police. The Panchayat of the village constructed a drain in the street from the house of the appellant to the house of the respondent, apart from constructing a GAURAV SOROT 2014.09.12 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-949-MA-2013 (O&M) -:2:- small bridge over the same near the house of the respondent. The respondent had restrained the appellant from constructing the drain, but with the help of Police same was constructed. On 15.12.2006 the respondent closed the drain with brick bats and concretes. The appellant tries to restrain the accused from doing so but the respondent raised challenging cry by uttering the words:-
"KUTIA CHURIA NALI TE PULI BAN TA GAI HAI PAR MAIN ISNU BAND KAR DEVANGA"
Upon which Satnam Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Gurbax Singh restrained the respondent from doing so. The matter was reported to Police Station, Jandiala for taking necessary action but of no avail. On 27.3.2007 in public view respondent raised challenging cry by uttering the words:-
"HARAMDIA CHURIA TU MEE KHILAF THANE WICH DARKHASTAN DINDA FIRDA HAI, MERI WADE POLICE AFSARAN NAAL JAN PACHHAN HAI, TE TUENU MAIN GHARO CHIJKA KE AFEEM DA CASE PUA KE TAINUE TERI AUKKAT YAD KARAWANGA".
When he was stopped from uttering the said words, he enraged and also uttered the words in a fit of anger:-
"IS HARAMDE KUTE CHUHRE NU SAMJHA LAVO. EHNA LOKA NU SARKAR NE TARRAKIYAN DE KE TE NAUKIYAN DE KE SADHE SIRE CHARA DITTA HAI, EH APNI AUKAT BHUL GAYE HAN. MERE VARGE NAL MATHA LAYA TAN IS CHURE NU BAHUT MEHNGA PAYEGA".
The respondent was stopped from doing so by the public standing at the spot but the respondent while threatening the appellant with GAURAV SOROT 2014.09.12 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-949-MA-2013 (O&M) -:3:- dire consequences went away from there. The appellant again moved a complaint to the Police but of no avail. Hence the present appeal.
In preliminary evidence, the complainant examined Harbhajan Singh as CW-1, Narinder Singh as CW-2 and thereafter he himself stepped into the witness box. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide order dated 26.11.2008 summoned the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 3(x) of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention & Atrocities) Act and on 23.3.2010 case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
Finding a prima facie case punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention & Atrocities) Act against the respondent and he was charge-sheeted accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The appellant examined Narinder Singh as PW-1 & Darshan Singh as PW-2 and thereafter the appellant closed his evidence. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and plead the he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
The respondent in his defence examined Arjan Singh as DW-1; Rajesh Kumar as DW-2; Gurvinder Singh, Record Keep as DW-3; DSP Hardev Singh as DW-4 and tendered some documents.
As per deposition of DW-1 Arjan Singh, who states that the respondent never used any derogatory words against the appellant which could have insulted the appellant. There is only a dispute of passage of drain between them. Gurvinder Singh, DW-3, Record Keeper, produced the record regarding complaint No.2663 dated 25.12.2006 and complaint GAURAV SOROT 2014.09.12 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-949-MA-2013 (O&M) -:4:- No.1800 dated 28.12.2006, both these complaints had been filed by the appellant-Darshan Singh against Jagir Singh. It has further been deposed that enquiry was conducted by DSP Hardev Singh and all the complaints were found to be false and the respondent was found innocent. Apart from the above fact the trial Curt has referred to the cross-examination of PW- 2/Darshan Singh, who admits that in order to built a street, a water channel has been constructed by the village Panchayat which passes in front of his house. The Sarpanch namely Satnam Singh and Harbhajan Singh belonged to Majbi Sikh category, to which Darshan Singh-complainant belongs. Sarpanch Satnam Singh and Harbhajan Singh did not choose to appear into the witness box to support the case of the complainant. Moreover the complainant has denied that complaints filed by him was enquired into by the DSP, which were found to be false and frivolous and were ultimately filed.
PW-1 Narinder Singh states in his cross-examination that some unknown person had filed complaints against the wife of Darshan Singh- complainant, who is working at Agan Wari and Darshan Singh suspects that those complaints have been filed by the respondent. This held the case of the appellant highly doubtful and planted one.
In view of the enquiry report conducted by DSP Hardev Singh, Ex.D8 and the fact that the Sarpanch Satnam Singh and Harbhajan Singh also belong to Majbi Sikh category, related to Darshan Singh-complainant and also witnessed the incident, did not appear as complainant's witness to support his case. Consequently, the judgment of the acquittal of the respondent does not require any interference.
Dismissed.
GAURAV SOROT 2014.09.12 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-949-MA-2013 (O&M) -:5:- As the main case has been finally decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( RITU BAHRI )
September 05, 2014 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
GAURAV SOROT
2014.09.12 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document