Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Chander Mani Singh Thakur on 24 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST-02) , DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 57532/2016
Assigned to Sessions on 28.05.2015
FIR No. 1222/2014
Police Station Moti Nagar
Under Section U/S 3 SC/ST Act
Charged Under Section U/S 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act
State Vs 1. Chander Mani Singh Thakur
s/o Vasudev Singh
2. Laxmi
w/o Arvind Singh
3. Santosh
w/o Rajan Singh
all r/o Jhuggi No. 171/64, Ram
Chander Park, F Block Moti
Nagar, Delhi
Arguments heard on 05.08.2022
Date of Judgment 24.08.2022
Final Order Convicted
Appearances: Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
Sh. Pankaj Verma, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
JUDGMENT:
(A) PRELUDE :
1. The case pertaining to the charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
in respect of FIR No. 1222/2014 u/s. 3 of SC/ST Act, PS Moti Nagar was committed to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (West), Delhi vide order dated 27.05.2015 of the Ld. MM.
S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 1 of 32(B) PROSECUTION VERSION :
2. The brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on the complaint of complainant Babu Lal, present FIR was registered on the directions of Addl. C.P. West, Delhi on
02.12.2014. In his complaint, complainant has levelled allegations that on 23.08.2014 at about 9.30 PM, accused Chander Mani Singh Thakur came to his shop to purchase Kuber Gutka which was not available at that time. Accused started to quarrel with him and started abusing and humiliating him by using filthy language and making remarks on his caste i.e Chamar, Chura, Neech etc. Accused had also called the police by dailing 100 and levelled false allegations against complainant that there is difference in the weight and measurement instrument used by the complainant and that he had been selling medicines without obtaining any permission for seeling the medicines. It is also alleged that accused and his family members are disturbing the peace of the locality by quarreling with the shopkeepers, rikshaw pullers and general public of locality and their intention is to harass and molest the poor innocent people. It is also alleged that during the quarrel, the two daughters of accused started scratching their own arms with their nails and tearing off their clothes in order to falsely implicate the accused in a false rape case. The investigation of this case was marked to Sh. Harcharvan Verma, ACP, Punjabi Bagh. Site plan was prepared by the IO, statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded, caste certificate of the complainant was seized and got verified from the competent authority. On 10.01.2014, accused Chander Mani Singh Thakur S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 2 of 32 was arrested and produced before the court. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet in the court for judicial verdict.
(C) THE CHARGE:
3. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused, Ld. Predecessor of this Court found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against all three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the case was proceeded for recording of prosecution evidence.
(D) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. In order to prove its charge, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to prove its case.
4.1 PW-1 Ct. Mukesh Kumar is a formal witness who has proved the order of DCP West District Ex.PW1/A vide which investigation of the case was marked to ACP Punjabi Bagh Sh Harcharan Verma. The entry in the dispatch register to this effect is Ex.PW1/B. 4.2 PW-2/complainant has deposed as under:
I am residing with my family at the above said address since 1990. I am running the general store from the said house also. Accused Chander Mani Singh and accused Laxmi and Santosh are present in S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 3 of 32 the Court today (correctly identified). They all are residing in the same locality leaving four houses from my house.
On 23.08.2014, at about 9:30 PM, accused Chander Mani Singh came to my shop for purchasing "Gutka Kuber". Gutka Kuber was not available in my shop hence I asked him that the Gutak Kuber is not available and he can purchase it from anywhere else. On this, accused Chander Money asked "Kyo nhi hai?" & thereafter he started abusing me by saying "Chamar neech tujhe jute mein pani pilaunga. Tu janta nahi hai mai Jamindar hu tujhe kharid lunga". After abusing in the above said manner he left my shop. I did not care as accused Chander Mani used to abuse me. Thereafter, PCR Van reached at the spot and then I came to know that accused Chander Mani had called PCR by calling on 100 number. Police officials took me to PS Moti Nagar. From the police station I was taken to the spot with two police officials of PS Moti Nagar. The police officials checked my shop and found the weight balance proper. They also found that I am selling only Pudin Hara and Anasin, crocin and disprine. The police officials checked our shop as accused Chander Mani had made allegation that I am selling medicine and accused had also made allegation that I am not weighing the goods in proper manner. Police official told to accused Chander Mani that such type of medicines are regularly found even in the houses and there is no illegality to keep the same. Then accused Chander Mani threatened that "nahi iski dukan band karwaunga". Thereafter police officials left the spot. When accused Chander Mani came S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 4 of 32 to my shop for purchasing Gutka Kuber and abused me thereafter accused Laxmi and Santosh also reached there and abused me (ulti sidhi galiyan di) they abused such as Haramjade, kutte, kamine. Earlier to present incident dated 23.08.2014 accused Chander Mani abused me on several occasions, however, I do not remember the dates. Accused used to abuse me as he used to take goods from my shop and did not pay the amount immediately. Whenever I asked him to pay the arrear amount he used to abuse me and told that he will not pay the money. Today, I have not brought my original SC/ST certificate. Further examination in chief is deferred. I have brought the original SC/ ST certificate issued in my name. The photocopy of said certificate is Ex. PW2/A (OSR). The said photocopy was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B bearing my signatures at point A. 4.3 PW-3 ASI Madan Lal is a formal witness being the duty officer who has proved the registration of FIR as Ex.PW3/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B. 4.4 PW-4 Sh. B. Narain is an eye witness who has deposed as under:
"I know Babu Lal who is residing in the same area in which I am residing. Babu Lal is running a grocery shop. I know accused Chander Mani Singh Thakur who is also residing in the same area in which I am residing. He is residing with his family living 4-5 hourses away from my house.
On 23.08.2014, at about 9/9.30 PM, when I returned to my house after my work I found that S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 5 of 32 accused Chander Mani Singh Thakur was abusing Babu Lal by saying him "Chura Chamar". Accused Chander Mani was also abusing Babu Lal (maa Bahan ki gali de rahe the). I can identify accused Chander Mani Singh Thakur who is present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness). Accused Chander Mani Singh Thakur is having three daughters namely Laxmi, Santosh and Rattan. I can identify Santosh and Laxmi who are also present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). As per my recollecting, in my presence Santosh and Laxmi had not come to the spot. Police never met me in connection of this case and police recorded my statement at about 5-5:15 PM, after the incident, However, I do not remember the date and month when my statement was recorded.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seeks the permission to cross examine the witness as he is residing from his previous statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Permission granted.
XXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for State Sh. Ajit Kumar Srivastava.
It may be correct that accused Laxmi and Santosh had also used castiest remarks (Jaati Suchak Shabad) to Babu Lal during the quarrel. It is correct that I had given such statement to police. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police in my statement Ex.PW4/A that no one dare to complaint against accused persons because accused persons used to threat to lodge complaint of molestation against public persons. Confronted with portion A to A1 of statement Ex.PW4/A wherein it is so recorded."
4.5 PW-5 HC Dharmender is a formal police witness. He has S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 6 of 32 merely proved that he had handed over the copy of FIR to ACP Harcharan Verma at his office.
4.6 PW-6 Prabhudin is an eye witness who has deposed as under:
I live on aforesaid address and I am vegetable vendor. Five years back on 09th August at around 9:30 PM I was present at my home. I heard the loud voice of abuses. On this I came out from my home and saw that accused Chander Mani who is present in the Court today was using abusive language against Babu Lal and he used the word "Chamaar" "Jute me paani pila dunga". The daughters of accused Chandermani were also using abusive language against Babu Lal. I do not remember the names of daughters of accused Chander mani but they are present in the Court today. Correctly identified. At this stage, witness pointed out towards co-accused Laxmi and Santosh who are present in the Court today.
After this police came at the spot. At this stage, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP request for defer of further examination of chief on the ground that she had not completely gone through the file and witness is retracting from his earlier statement.
Both the accused persons, namely, Laxmi and Santosh used to give abuses saying "Chamar - Luchha" in my presence to Babu Lal. Accused persons were also threatening by extorting "jo inka saath dega usko bhi dekh lenge aur band kara denge". The incident had happened on 23.08.2014. Several public persons were present there when S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 7 of 32 accused persons extorting words and threatening to Babu Lal. My statement was recorded by ACP outside Santoshi Mata Mandir. All the accused persons are present in the court today. Witness has correctly identified all the accused persons.
4.7 PW-7 Ct. Navdeep Singh is a formal witness. He has got verified the caste certificate of complainant from Tehsil Meh Nagar, District Azamgarh, UP and handed over the report to ACP Punjabi Bagh.
4.8 PW-8 Rohit Tiwari is also an eye witness. His deposition is as under:
I am residing at the above mentioned house with my family and working as priest in Jai Santoshi Mata Mandir situated near my house. I know all the accused persons present in the court today, namely, Chander Mani Singh Thakur, Laxmi and Santosh. (witness has correctly identified all the accused persons). Accused Laxmi and Santosh are daughters of accused Chander Mani Singh Thakur. I know one Babu Lal who is running a General Store (kiryana) near Santoshi Mata Mandir.
On 23.08.2014 at about 9:30 pm I had gone to the shop of Sh. Babu Lal mentioned above to purchase some household articles. When I reached there I found accused Chander Mani Thakur abusing and passing castiest remarks to Babu Lal by extorting by saying "tum chamar ho, tum neech jaati ke ho, tum humara kya bigar paoege, chamaron ko hum juton mein paani pilate hain". In the meantime, the remaining two accused persons namely, Santosh and S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 8 of 32 Laxmi also reached there and started abusing Babu Lal by extorting words "chamar ko chamar na kahein to aur kya kahein". These words were extorted by all the accused persons in my presence as well as in the presence of many public persons including Prabhu Deen and M.K. Bharti etc. Nobody in the area dared to speak against the accused persons including Laxmi and Santosh because they have threatened to implicate in false case by tearing of their clothes. My statement was recorded by IO on 03.12.2014 in this case while I was present in compound of Santoshi Mata Mandir.
4.9 PW-9 Sh. Mahender Bharti is also an eye witness who has deposed as under:
I alongwith my wife and two sons have been residing at above said address and I am running NGO name and style is Avam Progressive at C-14 A, Bhagwati Garden Extention, Dwarka Mor, New Delhi. Babu Lal complainant is my neighbour and he is running a criana shop. On 23.08.2014 at about 9:30 pm I was sitting outside my house. I heard a noise of accused Chander Mani and he was abusing Babu Lal by extorting the words that "Saale Kirane ki dukan khol kar apne aap ko raja samajhta hai. Mujhe gutka (kuber) dene se mana karta hai. Chamar apne ko raja banata hai. Jaante nahi hum thakur hain. Saale chamar, neech, kamno tum jaison ko to main jute mein paani peelata hoon. Tumne yahan aakar gand faila rakha hai. Jitna tum kamate ho utna to main randiyon per kharch kar deta hoon. Chamaron ko jute mein paani pilane ka to aksar yeh bakhan (bolna) S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 9 of 32 aksar yeh jawab hai. Inki ladkiyan Laxmi and Santosh bhi Babu Lal to chamar v neech keh kar kehti hain.
Kutton ko khana kya aa gaya inhe baatein aa gayi hum dekhte hain ki yeh yahan per dukan kaise chalata hai and chandermani singh thakur ne police to 100 number per phone karke police ko bula liya".
Police made inquiries from complainant Babu Lal also checked his scale (taraju) of the shop and admonished him stating that "kam tolta hai, kam saman deta hai". Thereafter police took us and all the accused persons to PS. Police recorded the statement of complainant Babu Lal and also recorded the statement of accused Chander Mani. ASI Madan Lal instructed us to leave the police station as he will send these statements to ACP and he also made inquiry from us and all accused persons.
Later on i.e. 03.12.2014, ACP alongwith staff came in the temple and recorded my statement. Accused Chander Mani Singh, Laxmi and Santosh are present in the court. Witness has correctly identified all the accused persons.
4.10 PW-10 ASI Ram Tek is a formal witness. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Chander Mani as Ex.PW10/A and personal search vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He further deposed that accused Chander Mani was taken to SGM Hospital for his medical examination.
4.11 PW-11 is the official witness from Tehsil Office, Meh Nagar, District Azamgarh, UP. He has proved the factum that the caste certificate of complainant Babu Lal was issued from the office of S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 10 of 32 Tehsildar, Meh Nagar, District Azamgarh, UP on 23.10.2008. Copy of authority letter in favor of this witness is Ex.PW11/A and the issuance register is Ex.PW11/B. 4.12 PW-12 Inspector C.L. Meena is the IO of the case who has deposed as under:
In August 2014, I was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Punjabi Bagh. An FIR on the complaint of complainant Babu Lal had been registered at PS Punjabi Bagh and same was being investigated by ACP Harcharan Verma. I had joined the investigation of this case on different stages.
On 29.12.2014 caste certificate of complainant was handed over to me for verification. I sent Ct. Navdeep to concerned authority for verification of the certificate. The certificate was got verified and it was found genuine. I handed over the certificate to ACP Harcharan Verma. On 10.01.2015 accused Chander Mani Singh present in the court (correctly identified) was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-10/A which bears signature of IO ACP Harcharan Verma which I identify. I have worked with ACP Harcharan Verma and have seen him writing and signing in the ordinary course of my official duties. Now I have come to know that ACP Harcharan Verma has gone abroad. I identify his signatures.
Today I have seen site plan of the incident which was prepared by the IO. The same is Ex. PW-12/A which bears signatures of IO at point A which I identify. The personal search memo is already Ex. PW- 10/B which bears the signature of IO at point B which I identify. I have also seen seizure memo of S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 11 of 32 photocopy of caste certificate. Same is already Ex. PW-2/B which bears signatures of the IO at point B which I identify. I have also seen statements of this case recorded by IO u/s. 161 Cr.PC and the same also bear signatures of IO ACP Harcharan Verma.
(E) STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons, under section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded so as to enable them to personally explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused to which they have denied as being incorrect and have stated that a false case has been registered against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
(F) DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
6. In order to prove their innocence, accused also examined four witnesses in their defence evidence.
6.1 DW-1 is the accused himself. He has examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C. His deposition is as under:
I am one of the accused in the present case. Babu Lal is the complainant in the present case and also resides in our neighbourhood. One Ambika Prasad Tiwari father of Rohit Tiwari had gone to grocery shop of Babu Lal. There was some tampering in the weight of shop of Babu Lal. Complainant Babu Lal used to sell expired medicines. I objected the act of the S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 12 of 32 complainant in 2014. I told him that I would call 100 number. On which complainant told me I could do whatever I could. He threatened me that he would implicate me in a case. I had given few complaints to police against complainant. Police came and some medicines were seized. Copy of one of the complaints is mark DW1/1 which bears my signatures at point A. Complainant Babu Lal, Rohit Tiwari and Mahender Bharti threatened me that I would be lodged in the jail and would never come out, if I did not take back my complaint. I had not grudge against Babu Lal prior to that incident. I have been falsely implicated in this case as I had lodged complaint against Babu Lal. In year 2014 when this FIR was registered my both the daughters were in their matrimonial home and were not present at my house. I did not use to go to shop of Babu Lal. No incident as alleged in this case had ever taken place. I was not arrested in this case. I was called at police station Punjabi Bagh and joined the investigation of this case. I was retained in the PS when I joined the investigation and was falsely implicated in this case. I want to say further that Sh. Ambika Prasad Tiwari father of Rohit Tiwari was running a temple and he used to let out money on interest 10% per month. Said Ambika Prasad Tiwari collected many boys and came to my house and he plucked the plants from my house. There was enmity between me and him and due to this reason had deposed against me. I had made complaint against Ambika Prasad Tiwari in year 1999. Copies of said complaints having receiving of PS and police office are Ex. DW1/A to Ex.DW1/D. I have been falsely implicated by complainant Babu Lal as I have been S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 13 of 32 lodged complaints against Ambikar Prasad Tiwari who was in collusion with Babu Lal, Mahender Bharti and B. Narain.
6.2 DW-2 is Sh. Ram Prasad Yadav. His deposition is as under:
In the year 2014 I used to purchase grocery items from the shop of complainant Babu Lal. He used to weigh less the grocery items. Many times I alongwith others had objected his conduct on which he threatened us by saying "mein to aise hi karung". My neighbour Chander Mani Singh Thakur also came out after hearing the noise of conversation between me and Babu Lal and he had made call police on 100 number. Police reached and a compromise had taken place between us. Babu Lal and Chander Mani were not taken to PS and compromise took place at the spot. No written compromise was prepared. Later on I came to know that Babu Lal had lodged a false complaint against Chander Mani. I had no written documents in this regard.
6.3 DW-3 is Smt. Vidyawati Tiwari. Her deposition is as under:
Accused Chander Mani and his daughters have been falsely implicated in SC/ST case. In year 2014 both the daughters (co-accused) of Chander Mani were residing in their matrimonial homes. In year 2013 my daughter was kidnapped/abducted by Parush Pal son of Prabhu Deen Pal (a witness of this case). I had appeared before Hon'ble High Court alongwith accused Chander Mani in respect of that case. Due to said reason Prabhu Deen had grudge against me and S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 14 of 32 Chander Mani and he with the connivance of Babu Lal falsely implicated Chander Mani. Mahender Bharti (another witness of this case) was involved in kidnapping of my daughter. Copy of complaint made before SHO Moti Nagar regarding kidnapping of my daughter is mark DW-3/1 which bears DD no. 46A dated 12.07.2013. One Ambika Prasad Tiwari was a corrupt priest and we had given a complaint against him in the PS. Due to this reason Rohit Tiwari, s/o. Ambika Tiwari had deposed Chander Mani as he was helping us. The case filed by us against Rohit Tiwari is still pending.
6.4 DW-4 is Sh. Ram Gopal. His deposition is as under:
On 23.08.2014 at about 9:30 pm a quarrel was going on between one Ram Prasad (DW-2) and Babu Lal outside the shop of Babu Lal and I was also present there. I went to the house to Chander Mani Thakur to come at the spot and to make a call to police on 100 number as no one was having mobile phone at that time. Babu Lal told Chander Mani that since he had called he (Babu Lal) would implicate him in a false case of SC/ST Act. Police came. I came to know later on that a compromise had taken place. Daughters of Chander Mani were at their matrimonial homes on 23.08.2014. Later on I came to know that Babu Lal had lodged false case against Chander Mani.
(G) REASONS AND DECISION :S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 15 of 32
7. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
8. Ld Addl. PP for the State has argued that all the prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution have firmly stood the test of cross examination and have been able to prove the case of prosecution beyond the pale of reasonable doubts. It is further argued that all the four public witnesses namely PW-4 B. Narain, PW-6 Prabhudin, PW-8 Rohit Tiwari and PW-9 Mahender Bharti have supported the case of the prosecution. In view of their categorical deposition, it has come in evidence that all three accused persons had made casteist remarks against the complainant. It is further argued that it is the admitted fact that both the complainant as well as accused persons are living in the same society since long and as such, the accused persons were in the knowledge that complainant belongs o SC/ST Act.
Therefore, all the ingredients for commission of an offence u/s 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act are clearly made out against the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish its case clearly and categorically and merely because there are some discrepancies in the testimony of PWs does not take away their clear and categorical deposition before the Court and the Court is not required to procure a parroted version of PWs. Hence, all the accused persons be convicted for the offences committed by them.
9. While opposing the Ld. State Counsel, the Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the present case is based on false and S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 16 of 32 frivolous allegations. It is argued that complaint Ex.PW2/D has been got drafted after seeking legal advise and hence, is an after-thought in order to falsely implicate the accused persons.
10. It is further argued that the alleged incident had occurred on 23.08.2014 whereas the FIR was registered only on 02.12.2014, hence, there is inordinate delay in registration of present FIR which clearly makes out the intention of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons.
11. It is also argued that in the complaint Ex.PW2/D, neither the name of the public witnesses examined by the prosecution witnesses nor the names of two daughters of accused Chander Mani have been mentioned which further makes it clear that all the public witnesses are planted witnesses who have deposed at the behest of the complainant.
12. It is also argued that all the public witnesses are interested witnesses because accused Chander Mani had filed complaints against them.
13. It is also argued that no original caste certificate was produced by the complainant and thus, no case under SC/ST Act is said to have been made out against the accused persons.
14. It is also argued that there are many contradictions/improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is argued that PW-6 in his deposition has stated that accused Laxmi and Santosh had abused the S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 17 of 32 complainant by saying him "Chamar Luchha" in his presence, however, none of the other public witnesses have deposed that the words "Chamar Luchha" were used by any of the accused persons. Thus, it is improvement by this witness. Further, there are many contradictions and improvements in the statement of other public witnesses which further raise serious doubts over the prosecution story.
15. It is also argued that complainant never called the police, rather it was the accused Chander Mani who had called at 100 number to complain against the complainant for using faulty weight balance and for selling medicines. The complainant got annoyed and in order to take revenge, present false case was got lodged against the accused persons by him.
16. Another argument of the accused is that they had no knowledge that complainant belonged to a scheduled caste community.
17. It is also argued that complainant did not inform the police regarding the use of castiest remarks against him by the accused persons when he visited the P.S Moti Nagar which casts doubt over the prosecution story.
18. It is further argued that no complaint regarding caste based abuses by the accused prior to the date of the incident has been filed by the complainant made to any Forum.
19. It is also argued that complainant has studied upto 2 nd S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 18 of 32 standard, however, the complaint is in English language which makes it amply clear that it was drafted by someone else.
20. It is also argued that on 24.08.2014, accused had filed a complaint against the complainant and immediately thereafter, complainant also lodged a complaint against accused persons in order to counter the complaint of the accused persons.
21. It is also argued that PW-9 in his cross examination has admitted that at the time of incident, there was no electricity, then, how the public witnesses have identified the accused persons.
22. In rebuttal, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that as regards the inordinate delay in registration of FIR is concerned, It is submitted on the very next day of the incident, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant and the delay, if any, was not on the part of the complainant.
23. As regards the argument that complaint filed by the complainant was got drafted by someone after seeking legal advise, it is submitted that there is no bar for anyone to file a complaint in English language and that too after seeking legal advise.
24. As regards the argument that complainant did not produce original caste certificate, it is submitted that PW-11 has proved the caste certificate issued to the complainant on 23.10.200 which is already Ex.PW2/A. Certified copy of issuance S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 19 of 32 register is Ex.PW11/B.
25. Another argument of defence that accused persons had no knowledge that complainant belonged to SC community is concerned, it is argued that it is the admitted fact that both the complainant and accused persons had been living in the same society, therefore, it cannot be the case that accused had no knowledge and this argument has been raised only to save themselves.
26. As regards the argument with respect to identity of the accused persons because of no electricity, it is submitted that even if there was no electricity, one can easily identify the person by face as well as by voice especially when the incident had happened in the locality where everyone is known to each other.
27. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record carefully.
28. Accused have been charged with the offence punishable u/s 3(1) (x) of the SC ST Act. Therefore, Section 3 (I) (x) of The Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is reproduced hereunder:
"Whoever, not being a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe in any place within public view."S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 20 of 32
29. The basic ingredients for the offence under Clause (X) of Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 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 the member of the SC or ST. As the intent to humiliate is necessary, it follows that the accused must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to the SC or ST community.
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 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 present.
30. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Daya Bhatnagar Vs. State 2004 (109) DLT 915 has observed that " to attract the offence under Section U/s 3 (I) (X) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the place where the offending action takes place should be within public view that does not mean that the place should be a public place. It could well be a private place, provided the utterance was made within public view. "Public view" is understood to S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 21 of 32 mean a place where public persons are present, howsoever small in number they may be. Public persons are independent and impartial persons who are not interested in any of the parties.
31. Further, in a case titled as Swaran Singh & Ors. V. State passed in Crl. Appeal No. 1287 of 2008 in SLP No. 987/2007 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."
32. In view of the settled principle of law, the first fact which the prosecution is required to prove is whether the complainant Babu Lal belongs to the schedule caste or not. In this regard, the testimony of PW-11 is important. PW-11 is the official witness from the office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Meh Nagar, Ajamgarh, U.P. He has deposed that the Scheduled Caste Certificate of Babu Lal was issued by the said office on 23.10.2008. The certified copy of issuance register has been duly proved as Ex.PW11/B. In view of the testimony of this official witness, this fact is proved on record that complainant Babu Lal belongs to a schedule caste community.
S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 22 of 3233. Now, the crucial question arises whether the accused persons knew that complainant belong to schedule caste community. On this fact, accused persons have argued that they were not aware of this fact, however, during cross examination of the complainant, no such suggestion has been put to the complainant which clearly suggests that this argument is an after thought. Further, it is the admitted fact that complainant and accused have been living in the same locality and have known to each other since long, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that accused persons were aware that complainant belongs to schedule caste community.
34. The next fact which the prosecution is required to prove is whether the complainant was intentionally humiliated or insulted by the accused persons in the public view. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined four public witnesses namely PW-4 B. Narain, PW-6 Prabhudin, PW-8 Rohit Tiwari and PW-9 Mahender Bharti. I have carefully perused the testimonies of these witnesses. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that on 23.08.2014 at about 9.30 pm, the complainant Babu Lal, who was running a shop in the locality, was initially abused by accused Chander Mani by uttering the word Chura Chamar and was later joined by his two daughters Laxmi and Santosh who also abused the complainant by using casteist remarks against him in full public view. Therefore, from the facts of the instant case, it is apparent that the incident had S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 23 of 32 occurred in the locality surrounded by the residential houses and also witnesses by four independent public witnesses who have duly supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is established on record that the incident had occurred in the public view within the meaning of section 3(1) (X) of the SC ST Act.
35. Now, I shall scrutinize the testimonies of public witnesses as well defence witnesses in order to ascertain the truth of the case and to see whether prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not.
36. The prosecution has examined four public witnesses namely PW-4 B. Narain, PW-6 Prabhudin, PW-8 Rohit Tiwari and PW-9 Mahender Bharti. I have carefully perused the testimonies of these witnesses. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that on 23.08.2014 at about 9.30 pm, the complainant Babu Lal, who was running a shop in the locality was abused by accused Chander Mani by making the casteist remarks "chamar" against him. All the four witnesses have also deposed that the other two accused Laxmi and Santosh also joined their father/accused Chander Mani and abused the complainant by using casteist remarks against him in full public view.
37. In their cross examinations, though some contradictions have been pointed out by the defence, however, those contradictions/improvements do not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution if the evidence of complainant as well as the testimonies of these four material witnesses is to be read S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 24 of 32 cumulatively. The testimonies of these witnesses have remained consistent and unimpeached except minor improvements/contradictions.
38. In their defence evidence, the accused persons have examined four witnesses namely DW-1/accused Chander Mani u/s 315 Cr.P.C, DW-2 Ram Prasad Yadav, DW-3 Vidyawati Yadav and DW-4 Ram Gopal. I have carefully perused their testimonies. DW-1/accused Chander Mani in his deposition has stated that the present case was lodged against him and his two daughters because he had made complaint to the police against the complainant regarding tampering of weighing scales and selling expired medicines. He has further deposed that he had also lodged complaints against Ambika Prasad Tiwari, Mahender Bharti and B. Narain.
39. Similarly, DW-2 has deposed that complainant used to weigh less the grocery items. Whenever he objected, the complainant said, he would do like this only. DW-3 has deposed that PW-9 Mahender bharti had kidnapped her daughter and DD entry in this regard was lodged at PS Moti Nagar. She further deposed that Parush Pal son of PW-6 Prabhudeen had kidnapped her daughter in the year 2013 and accused Chander Mani had supported her and because of this reason, PW-6 has deposed against accused persons. She also deposed that Rohit Tiwari has also deposed against accused because his father Ambika Prasad Tiwari who was priest in the temple was got removed by accused Chander Mani. DW-4 Ram Gopal has deposed that accused Laxmi and Santosh were at their S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 25 of 32 matrimonial homes on the date of incident 23.08.2014.
40. Ld. Addl. PP for State cross examined these witnesses. However, during their cross examination, they failed to explain and substantiate their statements in the absence of any documentary evidence.
41. The main argument of defence is that complainant in his written complainant did not mention the names of either the public witnesses nor the accused Laxmi and Santosh. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mansingh, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 414 has held as under :
One of the circumstances highlighted by the High Court to discard the evidence of PW 8 is non-mention of his name in the FIR. As stated by this Court in Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan evidence of the person whose name did not figure in the FIR as a witness does not perforce become suspect. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that the names of all witnesses, more particularly eyewitnesses, should be indicated in the FIR. As was observed by this Court in Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan mere non- mention of the name of an eyewitness does not render the prosecution version fragile.
42. In view of the above judgment, it is clear that it is not necessary that complainant was bound to give every detail in the first complaint. Further, during investigation, the IO must have made enquiries from the public persons and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C and thereafter, they were made witnesses in the present case. Also, the public witnesses have S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 26 of 32 also categorically deposed about the involvement of accused Laxmi and Santosh. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that non mentioning of the names of public witnesses and accused Laxmi and Santosh does not in any manner affect the case of the prosecution in view of the evidence that has come on record.
43. Another argument of the defence is that the public witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. Therefore, it is important to determine if they are interested witnesses or real witnesses with the help of decided cases on this point.
44. In Darya Singh vs State of Punjab reported as AIR 1965 SC 328, this is what the Supreme Court had to say on evaluation of evidence of an interested witness:-
"6. There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. But a person may be interested in the victim, being his relation or otherwise, and may not necessarily be hostile to the accused. In the case, the fact that the witness was related to the victim or was his friend, may not necessarily introduce any infirmity in his evidence. But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 27 of 32 necessary for the criminal courts examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinize all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it...It may be relevant to remember that though the witness is hostile to the assailant, it is not likely that he would deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of the enemy of the family out of malice. The desire to punish the victim would be so powerful in his mind that he would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family though he was not concerned with the assault. It is not improbable that in giving evidence, such a witness may name the real assailant and may add other persons out of malice and enmity and that is a factor which has to be borne in mind in appreciating the evidence of interested witnesses. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars."
45. In Seeman alias Veeranam vs State reported as (2005) 11 SCC 142, the aforesaid legal position was explained by the Supreme Court in the following manner:-
"4. It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness could be a S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 28 of 32 relative but that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. In such a case, it is the paramount duty of the court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence on record of such interested sole witness is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is an interested witness. Caution is to be applied by the Court while scrutinizing the evidence of the interested sole witness. The prosecution's non- production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement."
46. In Jayabalan vs. UT of Pondicherry reported as (2010) 1 SCC 199, once again, the Supreme Court highlighted the caution required to be taken in appreciating the evidence given by the interested witness as under:-
"We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavor of the court must be to look for consistency."S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 29 of 32
47. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab, (1976) 4SCC 369 has held as under:-
"The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration."
48. In the light of above judgments and after carefully perusing the testimonies of PW-4 B. Narain, PW-6 Prabhudin, PW-8 Rohit Tiwari and PW-9 Mahender Bharti, I find their testimonies consistent and corroborating and have remained unimpeached. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that all these witnesses are natural witnesses who have given the true account of the incident and are not the interested witnesses and as such, can be safely relied upon by this court.
49. Another argument raised on behalf of accused persons is that there is inordinate delay in registration of present FIR. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that on the very next day of incident i.e on 24.08.2014, a written complaint was made by the complainant regarding the incident. I have perused the said complaint. The complaint has been made on the very next day of the incident, though the FIR was registered on 02.12.2014. The delay was on the part of the investigating agency and not S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 30 of 32 on the part of the complainant who was very prompt in giving the complaint on the very next day of the incident. Therefore, the argument of defence is without any merit and does not in any manner affect the case of the prosecution.
50. Another lame argument put up by defence is disputing the identity of the accused persons on the ground that there was no electricity at the time of incident. In this regard, I am satisfied with the arguments of Ld. State Counsel that identity of the accused cannot be doubted merely because there was no electricity at that time. It is not the case of theft where the accused was unknown. Here, the accused and complainant have been residing in the same locality. Therefore, this argument has no relevance at all.
51. So far as the contradictions/improvements in the testimonies of the material witnesses are concerned. It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. In the instant case, though there are contradictions as well as improvements, however, the testimonies of witnesses are consistent throughout and have successfully stood the test of cross examination and nothing has come on record which could go in favour of the accused. This Court is conscious of S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 31 of 32 this fact that the incident had occurred on 23.08.2014 whereas the witnesses have been examined in the year 2017, 2018 and 2019 i.e after three, four and five years of the incident. Therefore, it is quite natural that human memory fades with the passage of time and hence, the witnesses cannot be expected to give the exact account of the incident.
(G) CONCLUSION :
52. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove that accused persons had insulted the complainant on the basis of his caste where the complainant was a Member of scheduled caste and such insult was done at a place which was within the public view and was witnessed by independent public witnesses. Therefore, it is clearly established that accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, all three accused persons stand convicted.
53. Let they be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by POORAN CHAND POORAN ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN CHAND Date: 2022.08.24 COURT ON THIS 24.08.2022 14:19:28 +0530 (POORAN CHAND) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST):DELHI S.C. No. 57532/2016 State Vs Chander Mani Singh Thakur etc. Page 32 of 32