Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brahm Dutt vs Jagdish Raj & Anr on 4 September, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. No.A-512-MA of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: 4.9.2013.
Brahm Dutt ...... Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Raj & Anr. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- None.
Ritu Bahri, J This appeal is against the order dated 11.7.2013, passed by the Judge, Special Court, Pathankot, whereby he acquitted the respondent in trial under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The complainant/appellant is a Sarpanch of village Panchayat Baloaur, Tehsil Pathankot, duly elected in elections. He is a Scheduled caste, who belongs to 'Mahasha caste' falling under the category of Scheduled Caste as declared by the Government of Punjab. The complainant/appellant being a Sarpanch was carrying out the work of development in the village on receipt of grant from the Punjab Government, On 28.1.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., when he was standing near the Dharmshala along with Joginder Pal Lambardar, Avinash Dev, son of Hans Raj, Ravi Kumar, Member Panchayat, Raj Kumar, son of Ramesh Kumar, both the accused came and started shouting at the complainant/appellant using abusing language and accused No.1 started calling him as under:-
"MAHASE KUTTE HARAMZADE, SARPANCH BANKE BHE MAHASHE DA MAHASHA HE RIHAA, JINA MAHASHIAN TENU VOTE PAA KE SARPANCH BANAYA HAI, OHBHI SAR HARAMZADE NE AUR TOON DEVELOPMENT BICHON Crl. No.A-512-MA of 2013(O&M) -2- KUTTE HARAMZADE BAKI MEMBRAN NALL MILKE PAISE KAMA RIHA HAI."
The words were uttered with an intention to insult and intimidate the complainant/appellant on a public place in the presence of the public who were standing there knowing fully well that he is a member of Scheduled caste and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act in the public place. After recording the preliminary evidence, vide order dated 3.4.2006, the accused were summoned for facing trial under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act and Section 506 IPC. After summoning the accused, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge Gurdaspur. On finding prima facie case, charge under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act and Section 506 IPC was framed against the accused. Prosecution examined Brahm Dutt as CW-1, Raj Kumar as CW-2. Thereafter, the complainant closed the prosecution evidence after tendering copy of Scheduled caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar Pathankot as Ex.C1/A. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The counsel for the accused had tendered copies of orders Ex.D4, Ex. D5, copy of application Ex.D6, copy of affidavit Ex.D7, copy of order Ex.D8 and Ex.D9 and closed the evidence of the accused.
Trial Court after going through the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the accused along with 40 other villagers filed complaint on 4.1.2006 to the DDPO Gurdaspur for misappropriation of the funds and after the enquiry it was found that the complaint filed against the complainant/appellant was true. On this ground, the complainant/appellant has a grudge and enmity against the accused. The date of occurrence as per the complaint was 28.1.2006, whereas the complaint was filed after a gap of Crl. No.A-512-MA of 2013(O&M) -3- 30 days on 28.2.2006. The complainant being a Sarpanch had appeared as CW1. He in his deposition while appearing as CW1, had stated that he was Sarpanch of the village Balour in the year 1978 to 1983 and again became Sarpanch of the Village. He was Sarpanch when he filed the present complaint. However, this fact is factually incorrect as the incident took place on 28.1.2006 and as per his statement, he reached the Court for filing the complaint on the next date of occurrence i.e. 29.1.2006, rather the same was filed on 28.2.2006. The official from the office of Tehsildar Pathankot, has not been examined to prove the caste certificate Ex.C1/A. There are other material contradictions in the deposition of CW1 complainant and Raj Kumar CW2 with regard to the complaint for using abusive language by the accused. Trial Court has acquitted the accused taking into consideration the delay in filing the complaint, non- proving the caste certificate and in view of material contradictions in the deposition of CW1 and CW2.
After going through the judgment passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that accused has filed a complaint along with 40 other villagers alleging that funds were misused by the complainant/sarpanch. After inquiry, the complaint was found to be true. Immediately, thereafter the complaint was filed by the present complainant on 28.2.2006 alleging that on 28.1.2006, the accused has come to his house and insulted the complainant in the name of his caste. The delay of 30 days has gone against the complainant as he is a Sarpanch of the village and cannot be considered as layman. Reference can be made to the judgment in Vennapusa Gangireddy @ Sahdu & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 (3) Criminal Court Case 137 (A.P). Reference can also be made to the judgment in case Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ram Parkash Assistant Sub Inspector Crl. No.A-512-MA of 2013(O&M) -4- of Police, 1982 Criminal Law Times, 145, where a delay of four days in filing the complaint has been considered material circumstance for disbelieving the version of the prosecution/complainant. In case Papatla John Veeranna Vs. State of A.P. And another, 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 489 (Andhra Pradesh), it has been held that delay of about one month in filing the complaint from the incident has been considered as fatal and accused have been acquitted on the ground of delay.
The complainant has placed reliance on certificate of caste Ex.C1/A issued by Tehsildar. He placed on record the photocopy of said caste certificate. The authenticity of the said certificate has not been approved by producing any official from the office of Tehsildar, Pathankot. This fact has gone against the complainant as the act in question being a special act required a very high standard of proof. Therefore, the fact of the certificate was of no help to the complainant. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination as CW1 that the accused along with 40 other villagers filed complaint on 4.1.2006 to the DDPO, Gurdaspur, for misappropriation of the funds. An inquiry was initiated and he was ordered to be appeared before the DDPO on 8.2.2006. It was reported by the DDPO that he had committed misappropriation of Rs.75,000/-. The present complaint was filed on 28.2.2006, whereas the incident as per the complaint took place on 28.1.2006. The possibility that it was a counter blast to the complaint, which was made by the accused along with other 40 other villagers, cannot be ruled out.
Officials of the office of Tehsildar were to prove the caste certificate Ex.C1/A. Prosecution version that the complainant belongs to Scheduled caste and the evidence led by the complainant and accused, Crl. No.A-512-MA of 2013(O&M) -5- have been correctly appreciated.
In view of above, no ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed.
04.09.2013 ( RITU BAHRI )
monika JUDGE
Verma Monika
2013.09.26 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh