Delhi District Court
State vs . Rama Shankar Tiwari on 30 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, ASJ-02/FTC
NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 165 of 2013
Registration No. 8863 of 2016
State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari
Son of Ram Ajar Tiwari.
Resident of RZ H-703, Raj Nagar,
Part- II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045.
FIR No. 19 of 2012
PS: Delhi Cantonment
U/s: 3 (1) (ix) of SC & ST Act
Date of institution of the case : 03.10.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 30.11.2016
Date of announcement of judgment : 30.11.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Rama Shankar Tiwari is facing trial in this case for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (ix) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act').
2. The gist of the allegation against the accused is that in the year 2007-08, the accused was posted along with the complainant Madan Lal in the Fault Repair Section (FRS) in the office of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) at Delhi Cantonment. The complainant Madan Lal belongs to Balmiki caste, a scheduled caste while Rama Shankar Tiwari belongs to Brahman caste. Allegedly, the accused could not tolerate working with / under a person belonging to the caste of the complainant. The accused was instrumental in a false complaint having been lodged by 23 other employees of the MTNL on 29.09.2007 against Madan Lal in the office of the Division Engineer, Telephone Exchange, Delhi Cantonment with the intention that the authorities in MTNL would use their lawful power State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 1/21 to the injury or annoyance of Madan Lal as he belongs to a scheduled caste. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed the offence under section 3 (1) (ix) of the SC / ST Act.
3. The detailed facts of the case are explained in the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as per which the FIR of this case came to be registered on the basis of an order dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Court of Sh. Sumit Dass, the then Ld. MM-01, Dwarka Courts, Delhi on an application of the complainant Madan Lal under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. which was filed by him along with a under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. In the complaint, Madan Lal alleged that he belongs to 'Balmiki' caste, a scheduled caste and that the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari belonged to 'Brahman' caste. It was stated the complainant was working in MTNL and the accused was also working in the same organization. Rama Shankar Tiwari was in the habit of insulting and disobeying his senior officers, especially those who belonged to the scheduled caste community. Rama Shankar Tiwari was junior to the complainant and used to disobey his instructions only for the reason that the complainant belonged to a scheduled caste. Rama Shankar Tiwari along with some of his colleagues entered into a conspiracy and made a false complaint purportedly signed by 23 other employees of MTNL making false allegations against the complainant with the intention to get departmental proceedings initiated against him and to get him transferred. On the basis of the said complaint, a Vigilance Inquiry was conducted in which show cause notice was issued to the complainant. In the course of the said inquiry, the 23 complainants were examined who stated that they were forced to sign the said complaint by the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari.
4. It is further stated in the complaint of the complainant under State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 2/21 section 200 of the Cr.P.C. that the complainant made a representation to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which directed the MTNL to constitute a departmental inquiry and also directed the complainant Madan Lal to approach the police. The complainant approached the office of DCP South-West with his complaint but no FIR was registered. In these circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. Magistrate under section 200 Cr.P.C. with an application under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. praying for registration of an FIR.
5. As recorded above, by order dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Court of Sh. Sumit Dass, the then Ld. MM-01, Dwarka Courts, Delhi the SHO of PS Delhi Cantonment was directed to register an FIR and to investigate the matter.
6. As per the police report, the investigation of the case was assigned to ACP Naryan Singh. During the course of investigation, it came to light that both Madan Lal and accused were posted in FRS of the Telephone Exchange, Delhi Cantonment. Madan Lal was posted as Senior Supervisor where three other employees namely Hari Om, Rama Shankar Tiwari (accused) and B.R. Meena were under him. Hari Om was working as a phone mechanic while the complainant Madan Lal, Rama Shankar Tiwari and Hari Om used to work on shifts. One person was always on duty to attend calls. Madan Lal had filed affidavits of B.R. Meena and Sohan Pal Sharma along with his complaint under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. B.R. Meena and Sohan Pal Sharma joined the investigation and their statements were recorded. Both affirmed the contents of their affidavits. These affidavits were verified from the Notary Public and Stamp Vendor. The IO recorded the statements of the complainants of the complaint made against Madan Lal. Statement of Sohan Pal Sharma could State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 3/21 not be recorded as he had died. One listed complainant Ashvanish Prasad was not found to be existing. The IO collected the caste certificate of the complainant and verified the same. After completing the investigation, IO filed the police report under section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. By order dated 12.11.2013, charge as mentioned above was framed against the accused for the offence under section 3 (1) (ix) of the SC / ST Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In all, prosecution has examined thirty four witnesses to bring home the charges against the accused. There were certain witnesses listed in the list of witnesses but they had been dropped on account of certain documents admitted by the accused regarding caste certificate of the complainant, death of one witness Sohan Pal Sharma and also for the reason that other witnesses to the same facts had already been examined. A brief description of the witnesses examined in the trial are tabulated as under:-
Srl. No. NAME RELEVANCE & STATEMENT IN COURT PW1 K.K. Tyagi He is the Notary Public who attested the affidavits of Sohan Pal and B.R. Meena and proved the relevant entries 1032 and 1033 dated 03.07.2008 in his register Ex.PW1/A. PW2 B.R. Meena He was working in the same Section as the complainant and the accused and stated that the behaviour of the accused was not good towards the complainant and he used to refuse to follow duty chart prepared on the instructions of the complainant.
PW3 HC Adesh Tygai He is the duty officer who registered the FIR Ex. PW3/A. PW4 Madan Lal He is complainant PW5 Mahender He is the Officer who had conducted Pal Aggarwal the Vigilance Inquiry against Madan Lal in pursuance to the complaint State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 4/21 Ex.PW5/C of 23 staff and had prepared the inquiry report Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Yogesh Bhandari In compliance of the order dated 11.04.2008 of the SC / ST Commission Ex.PW6/A, he had issued warning / written instructions dated 22.12.2012 Ex.PW6/B to the accused.
PW7 Munna Lal His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. PW7 denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
PW8 Bhagwan Deen His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
PW9 Suraj Bhan His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He did not support the version of the prosecution.
PW10 Mohd. Taiyab His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
PW11 Daya Ram His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
PW12 Sewa Ram His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 5/21 PW13 Surender Pratap His name is listed as one of 23 Singh complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
PW14 Ram Kishan He did not support the version of the Jakhmola prosecution.
PW15 Bansraj His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
PW16 Phool Chand He did not support the version of the prosecution.
PW17 Veena Bhardwaj She the authorized Stamp Vendor who had sold the stamp papers Mark P1/A and Mark P1/B to Sohan Pal Sharma and B.R. Meena.
PW18 Ahad Ali His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of Sri Krishan, JTO and not at the instance of the accused.
PW19 Rambir Singh He did not support the version of the prosecution regarding admission by the accused to him about having abused one Phool Chand regarding his caste.
PW20 Ram Nigre His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of Sri Krishan, JTO and not at the instance of the accused.
PW21 Laxmi Narayan His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of Sri Krishan and Ahad Ali in the presence of State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 6/21 Mansha Ram and not at the instance of the accused.
PW22 Mansa Ram His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of Sri Krishan, JTO and not at the instance of the accused.
PW23 Hari His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He denied any knowledge of the complaint and denied having signed the same as a complainant.
PW24 Badri Prasad His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of Sri Krishan, Ahad Ali and Hari Om and not at the instance of the accused.
PW25 Sri Krishan His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of the accused who instigating him on caste lines.
PW26 Yamuna Prasad His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of Sri Krishan and not at the instance of the accused.
PW27 Rangeela His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he signed the same on the request of Sri Krishan and not at the instance of the accused.
PW28 Girish Kumar He was cited as witness regarding complaint dated 26.10.2007 of the accused against Madan Lal State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 7/21 (complainant). He did not know the nature of the complaint or the reason why the accused wanted to withdraw his complaint against Madan Lal.
PW29 Vishwanath Paswan His name is listed as one of 23 complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/ C against Madan Lal. He stated that he did not remember at whose instance he signed the said complaint and denied the suggestion in cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that it was at the instance of the accused.
PW30 Satish Kumar Rawat He was the Tehshildar who conducted the verification regarding caste certificate of the complainant.
PW31 Khajan Singh He was the Bailiff who was associated with PW30 while verification of caste certificate of the complainant.
PW32 Sanjiv Narang, He had furnished to the IO documents
Senior Telecom relating to complaints of Madan Lal and
Operating Assistant one Phool Chand Ram including the
in MTNL original record of Ex.PW5/C.
PW33 Bhola Nath His name is listed as one of 23
complainants in the complaint Ex.PW5/
C against Madan Lal. He denied any
knowledge of the complaint and denied
having signed the same as a
complainant.
PW34 ACP Narayan Singh He is the IO of the case.
8. Statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence put to him. He did not wish to lead evidence in defence. The accused claimed that he had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant in connivance with the police.
9. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Irfan Ahmad, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. S.B. Upadhyay, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 8/21
10. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the evidence in this case was documentary. There was no dispute about the caste of the complainant and of the accused. Both the persons were admittedly working in the same organisation. The making of the complaint of 23 employees against the complainant Madan Lal stands proved vide Ex.PW5/C. Some of the witnesses examined in this case have supported the version of the prosecution and that there was sufficient material on the record warranting the conviction of the accused.
11. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. SB Upadhyay had submitted that prosecution had examined the complainants of the complaint Ex.PW5/C. All except one, namely Sri Krishan PW25, denied having made and / or having signed the said complaint at the instance of Rama Shankar Tiwari. They in fact stated that the said complaint was signed by them on the request of Sri Krishan PW25. There was therefore no material to connect the accused with the lodging of the complaint Ex.PW5/C.
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of this case. My findings are as under:-
13. Ex.PW5/C is the complaint dated 29.09.2007 purportedly made by 23 employees of the MTNL against Madan Lal with the Division Engineer, Telephone Exchange, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010. The subject matter of the said complaint was 'Non co-operation and use of foul language by Madan Lal'. In the complaint it was stated by the signatories that they were filed staff of the MTNL and they wanted to inform the Divisional Engineer that whenever Madan Lal used to work as supervisor in FRS, he never used to clear the complaints which were State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 9/21 already attended to by field staff and that Madan Lal did not co-operate with them. Whenever the filed staff used to make inquiries from him, Madan Lal used foul language against them and also threatened them that he was an Advocate. He used to tell the employees that if any complaint was filed against him, nothing would happen to him. The field staff therefore requested the Divisional Engineer for transfer of Madan Lal to some other office.
14. This complaint Ex.PW5/C bears the names / signatures of 23 persons. PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW15, PW18, PW20, PW21, PW22, PW23, PW24, PW25, PW26, PW27, PW29 and PW33 are the witnesses examined by the prosecution whose names / or signatures appear on the complaint Ex.PW5/C. The gist of the statements of these witnesses have already been tabulated. All these witnesses, except Sri Krishan PW25, denied having made and / or having signed the said complaint on the asking of the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari. Out of these witnesses, PW18, PW20, PW22, PW24, PW26 and PW27 have specifically deposed that they signed the complaint Ex.PW5/C on the request of Sri Krishan PW25.
15. PW25 Sri Krishan in his examination in chief has stated that he was posted in the MTNL where the accused and the complainant were also posted. One day Rama Shankar Tiwari called him to the cycle stand of the Delhi Cantt. Telephone Exchange office and told him that Madan Lal belonged to a scheduled caste whereas he i.e. PW25 and the accused were Brahmins. Rama Shankar Tiwari told him that Madan Lal was a "Chuda" and Balmiki and he was ruling them and they were working under him. Madan Lal was the senior supervisor and Rama Shankar Tiwari was junior to him. Both used to quarrel in the office. He further deposed that on the instigation of the accused, he i.e. PW25 signed the complaint State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 10/21 Ex.PW5/C against Madan Lal without reading its contents. He begged pardon from Madan Lal who had pardoned him.
16. In cross examination, PW25 Sri Krishan stated that Ram Kishan Jakhmola had made a complaint against the accused who was also in the FRS, Delhi Cantonment. He i.e. PW25 was called in the Vigilance Department and had stated the same facts in the vigilance inquiry as deposed by him in the Court. At that stage, the copy of the PW25 given before the Vigilance Officer Ex.PW25/DA was put to him which he admitted. He admitted that the in the said statement Ex.PW25/DA, he had stated that Rama Shankar Tiwari never made any caste specific remarks against Madan Lal in his presence. He stated that he used to handover the complaints to staff for repairing of faults and after addressing / clearing the complaint the staff used to inform him about the same. He stated that the staff used to inform him i.e. PW25 about the faults being not rectified and also in the FRS.
17. In cross examination, PW25 Sri Krishan further deposed that that all the 23 persons including him signed on the said complaint. He and the other complainants signed the complaint at the cycle stand of Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantonment. The accused Rama Shankar Tiwari was not present when he signed the compliant. He could not remember which other staff were present when he was asked by the accused to sign on the compliant Ex.PW5/C. He could not remember whether Ahad Ali and Hari Om were present when he signed the complaint. He stated that the complaint Ex.PW5/C was false and that he signed the false complaint on the asking of the accused. He was aware at the time of signing of the complaint that its contents were false. A specific question was put to PW25 to the effect that if he could sign a false complaint, he could also give a false statement in Court on the asking of any person including Madan Lal.
State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 11/21 In answer, PW25 stated that he will not make any false statement on oath before the Court but he had signed a false complaint on the asking of the accused.
18. The statement of PW25 reflects that the same is not reliable. Reason for such inference is that in his examination in chief, he stated that he was called by the accused to the cycle stand and on being instigated by the accused, he signed the complaint on the asking of Rama Shankar Tiwari without reading its contents. In cross-examination, PW25 initially stated that he could not remember which other staff was present with him when the accused asked him to sign the complaint. He then stated that all the 23 complainants including him signed the said complaint at the cycle stand but the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari was not present at that time. He has further stated that he was aware that the contents of the complaint were false and even then he signed on the same. The deposition of PW25 will have to be considered along with the statements of PW18, PW20, PW21, PW22, PW24, PW26 and PW27 who have stated that they had signed the complaint at the instance of PW25 Sri Krishan. In these facts and circumstances, the testimony of PW25 cannot be relied upon and is rejected.
19. Apart from PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW15, PW18, PW20, PW21, PW22, PW23, PW24, PW25, PW26, PW27, PW29 and PW33, there is no other direct witness regarding the complaint Ex.PW5/C. In view of the statements of these witnesses and the fact that the statement of PW25 is unreliable, there is no direct evidence on the record from which any inference can be raised that the complaint Ex.PW5/C was lodged against the complainant Madan Lal at the instance of the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari.
State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 12/21
20. The complainant Madan Lal was examined as PW4. In his examination in chief he stated that he and the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari were working in the FRS, MTNL, Telephone Exchange, Delhi Cantonment. He i.e. the complainant was working as supervision Supervisor Incharge while the accused was working as Junior Supervisor. The accused was not comfortable working under the complainant as he belonged to a scheduled caste while the accused belonged to Brahmin caste. The accused used to insult and disobey orders of his superior officers who belonged to scheduled caste. He stated that the accused had behaved in such a manner with his superior officers R.K. Jakhmola and Phool Chand Ram who both belonged to scheduled caste. PW4 has further stated that he was alone with the accused, when the accused told him that he would not like to work under the supervision of any scheduled caste person. He stated that S.P. Sharma, the supervisor, had told him about the mentality of the accused and also that he had got instituted a false complaint against him i.e. PW4. The accused wanted the help of S.P. Sharma in this regard who had refused. Subsequently, the complainant came to know from the Office Incharge Yogesh Bhandari about some linemen having made a complaint against him before Divisional Manager asking for his transfer. After looking into the contents of the complaint, he came to know that it was written in the same manner as disclosed by S.P. Sharma and it was not in the handwriting of any linemen but was in the handwriting of Rama Shankar Tiwari. He deposed that Rama Shankar Tiwari had got signed of some of the MTNL employees and forged the signatures of other staff on the complaint. More than 50% of signatures were forged. He tried to find out who had forged the signatures of the employees and came to know that the some have been forged by Sri Krishan, the Work Assistant.
21. PW4 further stated in his examination in chief that he was State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 13/21 issued a show cause on the said complaint to which he had replied. In reply, he had claimed that the complaint was a result of conspiracy of Rama Shankar Tiwari. He stated that R.N. Rai, the Divisional Engineer of MTNL had protected the accused against which the complainant approached the SC / ST Commission. The SC / ST Commission ordered a vigilance inquiry. He had also gave a complaint to the police in the office of SHO, Delhi Cantonment but no action had been taken. Vigilance inquiry was conducted by M.P. Aggarwal in compliance of the orders of the SC / ST Commission in which the accused was exonerated. He further stated that he challenged the inquiry report in SC / ST Commission which by its order dated 11.04.2008 rejected the vigilance report and found accused to be guilty. The General Manager had given an undertaking to take action against him i.e. the complainant. The accused was transferred to Delhi Cantonment office but no departmental action was taken against him. After receiving the copy of the inquiry report, the complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. Magistrate on the basis of which the present FIR came to be registered. He further stated that on one day at 6pm, the accused had come with Girish Kumar and Bishambar Singh to pressurize him to withdraw his complaint but he refused. The accused has confessed about making a false complaint and given a written apology in the presence of Girish Kumar and Bishambar Singh. Copy of the said note was produced by the complainant which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/A.
22. In cross examination, PW4 stated that he was not present when the accused had told S.P. Sharma about filing of a false complaint against him. He admitted that he had not mentioned any date, month or year when the accused had made caste specific derogatory remarks against him and that no such remarks were made in the presence of any person. He admitted that the accused has not signed anywhere on the complaint of the MTNL employees but voluntarily stated that it was made State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 14/21 at his instance. He stated that he can recognize the handwriting of the accused and he came to know from a source that the accused had written the complaint and got it signed. Most of the signatures were forged by Sri Krishan. He did not know in whose presence the said complaint was made. He submitted that Sri Krishan had confessed to him that he acted on the dictates of the accused as they both belonged to the same caste.
23. PW4 in further cross examination deposed that he had made his first written complaint against the accused on 22.10.2007 in the office. Before it, he had made oral complaints on which no action was taken. He stated that there were two unions in the MTNL namely Bharti Mazdoor Sangh and MTNL Staff Union. He i.e. PW4 was the primary member of Bharti Mazdoor Sangh and the accused was also a member of this union. He denied the suggestion that the accused was a member of MTNL Staff Union. He admitted that there was an association named as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar MTNL SC / ST Employees Welfare Association of which he was a primary member and had become its General Secretary from 20.08.2014. He denied the suggestion that he was pressurizing the accused to join Bharti Mazdoor Sangh. He had completed B.A. (Hons) and had the qualification of LL.B. from Delhi University. He had not taken any permission of the department to undergo the said course.
24. PW4 in his further cross examination had produced the promotion letters of himself and of the accused Ex.PW4/DA and Ex.PW4/DB respectively. He stated that the orders appointed him as supervisor over the accused. The date of joining of the complainant was 30.01.1981 while that of the accused was 1984. Therefore the accused was junior to him. The date of promotion of the complainant was 05.03.2003 in NE-10 whereas that of the accused was 31.01.2004. He admitted that it was not specifically stated that he had been appointed as State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 15/21 senior supervisor but he explained that as he was promoted as NE-10 prior to the accused, the post of senior supervisor was inherent. He further stated that the accused had not signed the complaint whereas the complaint was in the handwriting of Rama Shankar Tiwari. He admitted that vigilance inquiry had taken place on the said complaint but stated that no clean chit was given either to him i.e. the complainant or to the accused. He stated that neither he nor Rama Shankar Tiwari was found at fault.
25. As per the statement of PW4, he was informed by S.P. Sharma that the accused had told S.P. Sharma that he had got a false complaint instituted against him. However PW4 admitted that he was not present when the said conversation took place between S.P. Sharma and the accused. The statement of PW4 regarding the false complaint having been instituted by the accused is thus hearsay as PW4 himself did not hear the said conversation. It did not take place in his presence. PW4 in his statement in the Court had stated that the handwriting on the complaint was that of the accused but it was not signed by the accused. In this regard, it may be noted that there was no such allegation made by the complainant in his complaint before the Ld. Magistrate. No handwriting sample of the accused was taken during the course of the investigation and as such, there is no evidence on record to the effect that the handwriting on the complaint Ex.PW5/C is that of Rama Shankar Tiwari.
26. S.P. Sharma named as Sohan Pal Sharma could not be examined as a witness as he had died. As per the complainant, Sohan Pal Sharma had given his affidavit Ex.PW4/E to the complainant which he had attached with his complaint under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. I have gone through the contents of this affidavit. In the same Sohan Pal Sharma had stated that on 19.09.2007, he was accosted by the accused who told him State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 16/21 that he had made a complaint against Madan Lal and that he wanted to get Madan Lal shifted out from the office because one "chuda" should not be commanding them 'pandits'. The accused wanted the help of Sohan Pal Sharma who refused. Even though this affidavit has been verified from PW1 and PW17, in the absence of Sohan Pal Sharma being examined as a witness, its contents cannot be read in evidence in this trial.
27. PW4 had produced an apology letter Ex.PW4/A of the accused as per which the accused had apologized for having made a false complaint against Madan Lal. This letter was in the presence of Girish Kumar and Bishamber Singh. PW28 Girish Kumar has stated that the complaint regarding Madan Lal which he i.e. Rama Shankar Tiwari was made was pertaining to Madan Lal coming late to the office. Therefore this apology, if made does not pertain to the complaint Ex.PW5/C.
28. PW2 B.R. Meena in his examination in chief has stated that he was also working in Telephone Exchange, Delhi Cantonment where the accused was working as Section Supervisor and Madan Lal was In-charge of FRS. He stated that the behaviour of Rama Shankar Tiwari was not good towards Madan Lal and he used to misbehave and quarrel because he used to sit on the seat of Madan Lal. He has misbehaved by saying "Chamar chudo ka raaz hai ab to delhi mey bhi inka kabza ho jayey ga". He stated that the duty chart prepared by him i.e. PW2 on the instructions of the complainant was never followed by the accused and on one occasion, he torn the duty chart prepared by PW2. The accused used to utter that the seat was not meant for sitting of Madan Lal and he i.e. PW2. He stated that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe.
29. In cross examination PW2 remained steadfast. He reiterated State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 17/21 that the accused never accepted the duty chart. He also stated that there were complaints pending against Rama Shankar Tiwari for the offence under SC / ST Act of Phool Chand and R.S. Jakhmola.
30. However it is to be noted that as per the complainant Madan Lal, B.R. Meena PW2 had given his affidavit which the complainant had filed with his complaint under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. PW2 has not stated anything in the Court about that affidavit which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/F in the statement of the complainant PW4. Even other wise, PW2 has not stated anything about the complaint Ex.PW5/C having been lodged by MTNL employees at the instance of the accused.
31. Ram Kishan Jakhmola was examined as PW14. He stated in his examination in chief only stated that he was working as senior section supervisor at Dwarka where the accused was his subordinate. He stated that he found forty complaints were lying pending without testing and had not been cleared whereas sixty eight complaints were pending for final clearance. He stated that on his complaint to the Divisional Officer, Rama Shankar Tiwari was transferred to Delhi Cantonment. He stated that no caste specific derogatory remarks were every used by any person in his presence. He was subjected to cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the ground that he had not supported the version of the prosecution. In cross examination, PW14 denied the suggestion that Rama Shankar Tiwari had assaulted him with a shoe and threatened to kill him.
32. PW16 Phool Chand Ram in his examination in chief has stated that he was working in FRS at Dwarka in the year 2006 where Ram Kishan Jakhmola and Rama Shankar Tiwari were also working. He stated that he did not know anything about case. PW16 was permitted to be State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 18/21 cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the ground that he was resiled from his statement given to the police. In cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW16 has denied all the suggestions put to him and stated that the accused had never addressed him i.e. PW16 with caste specific derogatory remarks.
33. PW14 and PW16 have not supported what was deposed to by PW4. PW4 had stated that in the past the accused had abused R.K. Jakhmola PW14 and Phool Chand Ram PW16 as they belonged to scheduled caste. However PW 14 and PW16 have not stated any such fact.
34. Lastly I may also refer to the contents of the Inquiry Report Ex.PW5/A of PW5 Mahender Pal Aggarwal who had conducted the inquiry on the complaint Ex.PW5/C. In the same, PW5 has reported that he had called all the 23 employees and recorded their statements regarding the said complaint. Half of the employees had admitted their signatures on the complaint but stated that the contents of the complaint were correct. Eight employees denied their signatures on the same and claimed ignorance about the contents of the complaint. Two employees admitted their signatures but stated that they made the complaint under pressure and had got other employees to sign on the same. PW5 has opined that the said statements appeared to have been given under pressure and were not reliable. The Sub-Divisional Engineer (Fault Repair) of Delhi Cantonment had orally stated that Madan Lal used to be irresponsible about his work and whenever confronted he used to misbehaved and used foul language but nothing was stated in writing. It is further reported that Madan Lal alleged before the inquiry that the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari was instrumental in making the complaint. No evidence of caste specific remarks allegedly used by the accused was found.
State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 19/21
35. PW5 however came to a conclusion that a dispute had arisen amongst two groups in the approved worker's union and both the groups had used Madan Lal and Rama Shankar Tiwari to further their interests. In conclusion, PW5 recommended that all the employees be transferred out of the said office to ensure a long lasting solution.
36. Therefore even as per the inquiry report there was no material to conclude that the complaint Ex.PW5/C was made at the instance of the accused. Rather the conclusion drawn in the inquiry is that the dispute was a result of factionalism in the worker's employees union of the MTNL at Delhi Cantonment.
37. As recorded above, the charge against the accused was for the offence under section 3 (1) (ix) of the SC / ST Act for being instrumental in the false complaint Ex.PW5/C being instituted against the complainant. No evidence to this effect has come on record during the course of this trial. In these facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused.
CONCLUSION
38. The net result of the above discussion is that the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari is acquitted for the offence under section 3 (1) (ix) of the SC / ST Act.
39. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court (REETESH SINGH) on 30th November, 2016 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD 30.11.2016 State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 20/21 State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012 PS : Delhi Cantonment 30.11.2016 Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmad, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused is present on bail.
Sh. S.B. Upadhyay, counsel for the accused.
Arguments have been addressed.
Bonds in compliance of provisions of section 437A of the Cr.P.C. have been filed by the accused. The same are accepted.
Be awaited for orders at 4pm.
(Reetesh Singh) ASJ-02/FTC, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 30.11.2016 At 4pm Present : As above.
Vide separate judgment, the accused Rama Shankar Tiwari is acquitted for the offence under section 3 (1) (ix) of the SC / ST Act.
The bail bonds furnished by him today shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
(Reetesh Singh) ASJ-02/FTC, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 30.11.2016 State vs. Rama Shankar Tiwari FIR No. 19 of 2012, PS: Delhi Cantonment 21/21