Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Chand vs Puran Ram on 23 November, 2010
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.206-MA of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.206-MA of 2009
Date of Decision:23.11.2010
Ramesh Chand ......Appellant
Versus
Puran Ram .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that originally a criminal case was registered against respondent-accused-Puran Ram son of Baru Ram, under Sections 3(i)(x), 3(1)(xiii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
2. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused by virtue of impugned judgment dated 07.10.2008.
3. The appellant did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial Court and filed the instant petition for the grant of leave to appeal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in this petition.
5. As is evident from the record that the trial Judge has acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment dated 07.10.2008. The operative part of which CRM No.206-MA of 2009 2 is as under:-
"I have given considerable thoughts to the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record of the case file. In this case, prosecution mainly relied upon testimony of PW1 i.e. complainant and eye witness to the alleged occurrence Roshal Lal PW2. Both these witnesses in no way stated that complainant was insulted or defamed before general public and if these basis ingredients are missing, no offence can be said to have been committed. Such a law was laid down by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case K.M.Ashokan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala 2005(2) RCR(Crl.) 82. Moreso, as per testimony of PW1 and PW2, there is no evidence on the file that the parties were being collude because the accused is facing allegations for the offences under section 3(1)
(x) and (xiii) that the water was being spoiled by the accused which was used by the members of scheduled caste or the schedule tribe.
PW1 Ramesh Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that there is one Johar in the Village. It has come in resolution of Gram Panchayat Ex.D4 that accused has not raised construction of any latrine in the Johar rather there is one Johar in the village and the same is being used by all the residents of the village. Similar is a deposition of DW2 Om Parkash.
Another aspect in this case is that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 5.3.2005 whereas complaint was filed on 1.7.2005. The said delay has not been explained by the prosecution in any way. As per law laid down by our Hon'ble High Court in case Kuldip Raj Mahajan Vs. Hukam Chand 2008(1) RCR(Crl.) 370 even such complaint under the Act filed after considerable delay and the said delay not explained, the complaint is even liable to be quashed. Similar law was laid down by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case Papatla John Veeranna Vs. State of A.P. and another 2003 (3) RCR(Crl) 489.
As is the evidence in this case, complainant was having grudge against the accused as construction raised on a public place was got demolished by the accused while he was working as Sarpanch of the Village and for that purpose accused has taken the matter with District Administration and with the help of District Administration that illegal construction was got removed and that had given a CRM No.206-MA of 2009 3 motive for the complainant to file this complaint. This fact has been proved on the file as per statement of DW1 Balbir Singh who was deposing on the basis of record and documentary evidence Ex.D1 to Ex.D3."
6. Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has recorded the valid reasons/grounds and rightly acquitted the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out that how and in what manner, any interference is warranted in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Such judgment, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with in these proceedings, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the impugned judgment.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as no cogent ground for interference is made out, therefore, the petition for leave to appeal is hereby declined, culminating in the dismissal of the appeal as well, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
November 23, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
CRM No.206-MA of 2009 4