Delhi District Court
Accused Relied Upon The Case Of Sohan ... vs . State With Asad Bai on 29 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH, ASJ02/FTC, NEW
DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0747442005
Complaint Case no. 1/11
Ghasi Ram,
S/o Late Kesri Singh,
R/o F121, Kondli Extension,
Delhi. .....Complainant
versus
Mahavir Singh Yadav,
S/o Sh. Laxmi Narain,
Regional Engineer,
Press Trust of India Ltd.
P.T.I Building, 4, Parliament Street,
New Delhi. .....Accused
U/s: 3 (X) & (XV) SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and u/s 506 IPC
PS: Parliament Street
Date of institution of the case : 01.02.2008
Date when the case reserved for judgment : 14.03.2012
Date of announcement of judgment : 29.03.2012
C. C. No. 1/11 1/19
JUDGEMENT
Complainant Ghasi Ram had filed a complaint u/s section 3 (x)
(xv) of SC & ST Act 1989 and under section 503/504/505 & 506 IPC against the accused Mahavir Singh, before the Ld. MM, New Delhi. Alongwith the complaint, an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C for investigation and registration of the case was also filed. It is averred in the complaint that on 29.03.2004, the election of Press Trust of India (PTI) Employees Union, Delhi was held and the complainant was unanimously elected to the post of joint secretary. It is alleged in the complaint that on 01.04.2004, at about 2.30 PM, when the complainant was coming out of the messenger room and the accused was also coming out of the nearby next room, then the accused stopped the complainant and started threatening and abused the complainant in filthy language. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused, in front of the official staff, uttered to the complainant that "dhedh chamar, apani aukat me rah, dekhta hun tu ab kaise Delhi me rehta hai". The office staff Sh. Ghana Nand Joshi, Sattan Singh Negi were also present there and they tried to stop the accused and requested not to speak such language for the complainant, but the accused did not stop and continued his threatening and abusive language.
In the complaint, filed by the complainant, before the ld. MM, it C. C. No. 1/11 2/19 is alleged that the accused threatened the complainant that if he failed to resign from the post of joint secretary, he will be transferred from Delhi and when complainant protested against the aforesaid remarks then accused further stated that "Kutte ko kutta nahi to kya hathi kahenge".
It is further averred in the complaint that due to the aforesaid act and conducts of the accused, the complainant went into such state of depression that he had to be taken to RML Hospital, New Delhi for treatment and also further to a private Doctor who advised the complainant for complete bed rest till he recovers from the said depression. In the complaint filed before the Ld. MM, it is averred by the complainant that on 14.04.2004, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused in PS Parliament Street, New Delhi and copy of the said complaint was sent to the National Commission for SC&ST on 15.04.2004. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused used to give threats to the complainant everyday and also stated that FIR will never be lodged against the accused. It is averred in the complaint that instead of aforesaid complaint made by the complainant to the PS Parliament Street no action was taken, rather the complainant was forced that he should withdraw his complaint against the accused.
The Ld. MM, New Delhi, directed the SHO, PS Parliament Street to investigate the matter and to file the report. IO has filed the C. C. No. 1/11 3/19 action taken report and as per the report of the police as per inquiry conducted by the police no cognizable offence was made out. Thereafter, three witness were examined by the complainant. Thereafter, Ld. MM vide order dated 09.05.2005 issued summons to the accused. Since, the offence was exclusively triable by court of Session, hence the Ld. MM committed the case in the Court of Session.
After hearing the Ld. Special PP for the state, complainant and accused and his Counsel charge u/s 3(1)(X) of ST&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and u/s 506 IPC were framed against the accused Mahavir Singh Yadav on 04.03.2008 and to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The complainant has examined the five witnesses in all namely the PW1 Ghanna Nand Joshi, PW2 Sattan Singh Negi, PW3 Ghasi Ram, PW4 N.C. Bishwas, PW5 Dr. S. Kumar.
PW1 Ghanna Nand Joshi deposed that on 01.04.2004, at about 02:25 PM, he was present in transmission department creed room and he was alone in the room and at that time when Ghasi Ram came to him. He further stated that the Ghasi Ram told him that he will serve tea to him in the Coffee room and left his room. After finishing his job, PW1 Ghanna Nand Joshi went to Coffee room. He stated that when he reached near Coffee room, Ghasi Ram and Sattan Singh Negi C. C. No. 1/11 4/19 were talking to each other outside the messenger department and accused was standing on the gate of federation room. PW1 deposed that when he reached Coffee room, accused had uttered to Ghasi Ram that "Dhed chamar apni aukat me reh dekhta huin delhi me kaise rahta hai, teri himmat kaise hui union me election larne ki". Thereafter, PW1 and Sattan Singh Negi tried to intervene and objected to derogatory remarks uttered by the accused and Ghasi Ram also objected to the derogatory remarks. PW 1 advised the accused that he should not abused to Ghasi Ram in such a manner, on which accused had uttered "kutte ko kutta nahi kahege to haathi kahen gei". PW 1 stated that he, Ghasi Ram and Sattan Singh Negi felt insult on the behaviour of the accused. He further stated that thereafter in the evening he came to know that Ghasi Ram went in depression.
PW 2 Sattan Singh Negi was also stated to be present at the alleged time of incident. PW 2 deposed that Ghasi Ram offered tea to him and Dilwan Singh Rawat, but Dilwan Singh Rawat refused to take tea. PW 2 accepted the offer of Ghasi Ram and both PW 2 and Ghasi Ram started waiting outside the messenger room for Ghana Nand Joshi, as he also invited him for tea. PW 2 further stated that accused Mahavir Singh Yadav was standing outside the federation room and on seeing Ghasi Ram uttered, "dhed chamar, apani aukat me rah, dekhta hu tu Delhi me kaise rah paata hai, teri himmat kaise hui union me C. C. No. 1/11 5/19 chunav ladane ki" PW 2, Sattan Singh Negi, Ghasi Ram and Ghanand Joshi objected to the remarks of accused against Ghasi Ram. PW 2 further stated that on this accused uttered "kutte ko kutta nahi kahege to haathi kahen gei".
PW 3 is the complainant, who deposed that on 29.03.2004, he was elected as unopposed for the post of Joint Secretary, PTI, Employees Union, New Delhi and on 01.04.2004, he came to PTI office for his duty and at about 2.30 PM he had gone to messenger room to thank messenger employees. He stated that Sattan Singh Negi and Diwan Singh met him at messenger room and he offered tea for both of them, but Diwan Singh refused his offer. He stated that at the gate of messenger room he told Sattan Singh Negi that Ghana Nand Joshi would also come for taking tea. PW 3 deposed that accused Mahavir Singh Yadav came outside the federation room which was adjoining to the messenger room and uttered to him "dhed chamar, apani aukat me rah, dekhta hu tu Delhi me kaise rah paata hai, teri himmat kaise hui union me chunav ladane ki". PW 3 stated that he asked to accused as to why he was abusing him and Sattan Singh Negi and Ghana Nand Joshi also told the accused that you should not abused Ghasi Ram like that manner. On this, accused again uttered "kutte ko kutta nahi kahege to haathi kahen gei". PW 3 stated that he suffered mental torture due to the abuses given by the accused to him. PW 3 C. C. No. 1/11 6/19 stated that on the way one Bheem Singh, a PTI employee on seeing his condition took him to RML Hospital, where he was medically examined. He further stated that on 14.04.2004, when he felt better then he went to PS Parliament Street and lodged the complaint against the accused. PW 3 has proved his scheduled caste certificate exhibited as Ex. PW 3/A, copy of complaint to SHO, PS Parliament Street as Ex. PW 1/B, photocopy of complaint given to the SC/ST Commission as Ex. PW 1/C and complaint to the Commissioner of Police as Ex. PW 1/D. PW 3 stated that after the filing of the complaint in the court, accused threatened him on telephone to withdraw the complaint case, otherwise he and his family will face the consequences.
PW 4 N.C. Biswas is the record clerk of RML Hospital, who deposed that original record of OPD card has been destroyed, as it was more than five years old. PW 4 stated that he cannot identify the signatures of the doctor. PW 5 Dr. S. Kumar deposed that on 01.04.2004, complainant Ghasi Ram came at his clinic and examined him, who was found having complaint of sleeplessness and loss of appetite. PW 5 proved the prescription slip as Ex. PW 5/A. In order to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence, all the incriminating evidence has been put against the accused, while examining him u/s 313 Cr.P.C., to which the accused pleaded his innocence and submitted that it is false case against him and further C. C. No. 1/11 7/19 submitted that he is active Trade Union Worker in PTI and newspaper industry and he retained General Secretary of Federation of PTI Employees for fourteen years. He further pleaded that the present case has been got registered by the complainant due to rivalry of his union in which he is Joint Secretary.
Accused produced four witnesses in his defence. DW 1 Ekta Thani was also working in the PTI as news editor. DW 1 deposed that in April 2004, the police had made inquiries from her regarding the complaint lodged by the complainant Ghasi Ram against the accused Mahavir Singh, wherein it was alleged that accused had abused the complainant by his caste. DW 1 stated that she informed the police that no such incident on 01.04.2004 had taken place. She stated that she had given written statement to the police regarding the alleged incident vide Ex. DW 1/1. DW 2, Birender Kumar Singh was also the employee of the PTI, who deposed that on 01.04.2004, his duty hours were from 8.00 AM till 4.00 PM on the gate of the hall and on 19.04.2004, the police made inquiries from him regarding the alleged incident of 01.04.2004. DW 2 stated that no such incident of abuses had taken place on 01.04.2004 in the hall in his presence and he had given written statement to the police regarding this vide Ex. DW 2/1. This witness deposed that to enter the hall, even the employees of PTI had to punch their cards and as far as he remembers, on 01.04.2004 C. C. No. 1/11 8/19 complainant Ghasi Ram had not punch his card to enter the said hall.
DW 3, Sudarshan Kumar Mishra was also working in PTI, who deposed that on 01.04.2004 he was the incharge of the messenger room and his duty hours were from 10.00 AM till 5.00 PM. He stated that on 04.05.2004, the police officials made inquiries from him regarding the alleged incident reported by the complainant Ghasi Ram to the police that he was abused by the accused Mahavir Yadav on 01.04.2004. He stated that during his duty hours no such incident had taken place between accused Mahavir Singh Yadav and complainant Ghasi Ram on 01.04.2004 and he had given written statement to the police regarding this effect vide Ex. DW 3/1. DW 4 Sunil Sehgal stated that on 01.04.2004, he was the general secretary of the PTI Workers Union and on 01.04.2004 from 2.00 PM to 4.00 PM, he was present in the Federation Room of the Union. He stated that in May 2004, the police officials visited the office of PTI and made inquiries from him regarding the complaint of Ghasi Ram for the alleged incident of 01.04.2004 against the accused. DW 4 deposed that he informed the police officials that no such incident had taken place on 01.04.2004 and he also gave written statement to the police regarding this vide Ex. DW 4/A. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the state, Counsel for the complainant and Counsel for the accused. Ld. Spl. PP for the state C. C. No. 1/11 9/19 submitted that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that PW1 Ghanand Joshi, PW2 Sattan Singh Negi, PW3 Complainant Ghasi Ram had categorically stated that accused uttered the objectionable words to the complainant.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant had made the complaint in the present case due to political rivalry. He further submitted that the accused is General Secretary of Federation of PTI Employees Union for the last 14 years. Initially, there was a PTI Employees Union and most of the members of the union left the PTI Employees Union and formed PTI Workers Union and accused is also the member of PTI Workers Union. The complainant remained as the member of PTI Employees Union, Delhi. He further submitted that the management of PTI had recognized the PTI Workers Union. Ld. counsel for accused submitted that in these background there were political rivalry between the complainant and the accused and PW 1 and PW 2 and the complainant himself are belongs to the same union. He further submitted that the complainant was transferred from Delhi to Chandigarh on 31.03.2004 and the alleged incident is of 01.04.2004 and due to the transfer of the complainant, he has made out a false case. The ld. counsel for the accused relied upon the case of Sohan Sahai vs. State with Asad Bai @Asar Bai vs. State and Munna Lal vs. State, 2009 (3) JCC 2436, C. C. No. 1/11 10/19 wherein it was observed that in criminal cases the onus of proving every fact essential to establishment of charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution as in criminal jurisprudence accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence.
I have gone through the record and perused the file and also analyses the evidence. PW1 Ghananand Joshi and PW2 Sattan Singh Negi were stated to be present when accused uttered objectionable word to the complainant. Therefore, the testimonies of PW 1 Ghana Nand Joshi, PW2 Sattan Singh Negi, PW3 Complainant Ghasi Ram are very material for determination of the case. PW1 stated that the accused was standing on the gate of federation room which is mean for employees union. He stated that when he reached coffee room, accused had uttered Ghasi Ram "Dhed Chammar Apni Aukat mein Raih, dekhta huin Delhi mein kaise rehta hai, teri himmat kaise hui union mein election larne ki". Thereafter, PW1, PW2 and complainant objected the derogatory marks uttered by the accused. PW1 deposed that accused thereafter uttered "kutte ko kutta nahi kahenge to hathi kahenge kya". He stated that in the evening he came to know that Ghasi Ram went into depression. In his crossexamination PW1 stated that no one came from the messenger department or from bhasha C. C. No. 1/11 11/19 editorial department at the spot to intervene the matter. He categorically stated that he has no knowledge if anybody else had also heard the insulting remarks of the accused. In his cross examination, PW1 specifically stated that they got no time to ask from the accused why he was abusing Ghasi Ram. However, in his examinationinchief, he stated that they have intervened and objected the accused for the derogatory remarks uttered by the accused. Therefore, there is contradiction in the statement of PW1 Ghana Nand Joshi. Moreover, PW1 stated that in front of him condition of the complainant was not deteriorated. PW2 Sattan Singh Negi also stated that accused uttered to the complainant Ghasi Ram "Dhed Chammar Apni Aukat mein Raih, dekhta huin Delhi mein kaise rehta hai, teri himmat kaise hui union mein election larne ki", and when complainant, PW1 and he objected to the accused for his objectionable remarks, then accused uttered "kutte ko kutta nahi kanhu to kya hathi kahe". In his cross examination he stated that no public was allowed inside the hall and only employees of PTI can go there by punching their identity cards. Both PW1 and PW2 did not make any complaint regarding the alleged incident stated to be occurred before them. Why they had not made any complaint regarding the alleged incident, there is no clarification from both the witnesses.
Complainant who was examined as PW3 stated that in the C. C. No. 1/11 12/19 presence of PW1 and PW2 accused uttered to him "Dhed Chammar Apni Aukat mein Raih, dekhta huin tu kaise ab yaha reh pata hai, tu ne union mein kaise chunav larne ki himmat ki". Complainant further stated that when he alongwith PW1 and PW2 objected then accused again uttered "Kutte ko Kutta nahi Kahainge to kya hathi kahainge". He deposed that he suffered mental torture due to the abuses given by the accused. Thereafter, accused was stated to be taken to the RML Hospital by one Bhim Singh but Bhim Singh was not examined by the complainant. On 14.04.2004, complainant lodged complaint against the accused. The complainant had lodged the complaint to the police after the gap of 14 days, as the alleged incident was stated to be of 01.04.2004. The complainant has failed to give satisfactory explanation as to why he had not lodged the complaint with the police immediately after the incident and why it took him about fourteen days time to lodged the complaint. The only explanation he gave was that on 14.04.2004, when he felt better then he went to PS Parliament Street to lodged the complaint against the accused. The complainant is stated to have had gone in depression after the incident but he himself stated in his crossexamination that he did not get himself examined before a psychiatrist. However, he was examined initially at the RML Hospital and thereafter examined by PW5 Dr. S. Kumar in his Clinic. PW5 stated that the complainant was having complaint of sleeplessness and C. C. No. 1/11 13/19 loss of appetite. He has proved the prescription slip Ex.PW5/A. PW5 in his crossexamination stated that the patient had not disclosed the reason for his ailment and also did not disclose since when he was suffering from depression. He further stated that the patient recovered from the depression after about one and half month. But PW5 Dr. S. Kumar also stated that he had not obtaining any diploma in psychiatric and had not advice any test for the patient. Therefore, after the incident, the complainant went in depression itself is doubtful as he was not examined by any psychiatrist. Moreover, PW5 who examined the complainant categorically stated that no test was advice for the patient. PW5 had also admitted that he had not obtained diploma in psychiatric, therefore, his deposition to the effect that the patient recovered from depression after one and half month has no force particularly in the fact that he had not advised any test to the patient.
In these circumstances, there is no force in the explanation of the complainant that after he recover and felt better then he lodged the complaint on 14.04.2004.
Regarding delay in lodging the FIR the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P v. Gian Chand 2001 (2) JCC 92, it was held that if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. C. C. No. 1/11 14/19 However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.
Further in the case of Dilarwar Singh V. State of Delhi, 2007 (4) JCC 2593, it was observed that in criminal trial one of the cardinal principals for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either corning before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case.
Moreover, in the present case, the alleged incident was stated to be occurred at PTI office and the accused stated to have had uttered the objectionable words in the presence of PW1 and PW2, who were also employee of the PTI. Therefore, question arises whether the alleged offence/incident was occurred in the 'public view'. As per section 3 (1) (X) of the SC&ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, there should be C. C. No. 1/11 15/19 intentionally insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC or ST in any place within public view.
In the present case, the place of incident is PTI office and the complainant himself stated in his testimonies that no public person were allowed to go to the hall of PTI office. No PWs has stated that the office where the alleged incident was occurred was assessable to the public.
In the case of Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. V. State 2004 (2) JCC 1136, it was held that the expression 'public view' is used in contradiction to the expression 'private view'. It was further observed that the public means everybody and includes the body of the public at large, the community at large, include inhabitant of a particular place and people of neighborhood but persons having relationship or association with the complainant would be excluded.
Therefore, in this case the alleged incident was stated to have had occurred at the PTI office, before the PW1 and PW2, who were also associates of complainant. As such the alleged incident can not be construed to be occurred in public view. There is no dispute that at the time of alleged incident no other public persons were present, except PW 1, PW 2 and the complainant, who were the employees of the PTI.
Otherwise, the PW1 Ekta Thani, PW2 Birender Singhm, DW3 Sudharshan Kumar Mishra and DW4 Sunil Sehgal categorically stated C. C. No. 1/11 16/19 that on 01.04.2004, they were present in the PTI office and in their presence, no such alleged incident was occurred. Moreover, all the defence witnesses were also working in PTI office at the time of alleged incident and none of them had stated that they had witnessed the alleged incident.
It is settled law that defence witnesses also deserves equal treatment on par with a prosecution witness. In the case of Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 911, wherein it was observed that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And Courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.
Police has also inquired from DW1 Ekta Thani, DW2 Birender Kumar Singh, DW3 Sudharshan Kumar Mishra and DW4 Sunil Sehgal and they had proved their statement given to the police vide Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW2/1, Ex.DW3/1 and Ex.DW4/A respectively. In their statement given to the police they have denied the occurrence of alleged incident on 01.04.2004. The defence witnesses were also working in the PTI office, therefore their testimonies can not be simply discarded as they being the defence witnesses. The defence witnesses also deserved equal treatment at par to the prosecution witnesses.
In this case, it has come in the testimonies of the witnesses that C. C. No. 1/11 17/19 there were two unions in the PTI and accused and complainant both are admittedly the member of the different unions. The accused as well as complainant were representative of different union. Even as per the testimonies of the complainant and PW1 and PW2, accused allegedly abused to the complainant due to complainant's contesting of elections. Therefore, it is also appears that there is some political rivalry between the complainant and accused. Otherwise also there is delay of about 14 days in lodging the complaint to the police and the complainant failed to satisfactory explain the delay in lodging the complaint which creates doubts about the complainants/prosecution case. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the accused threatened the complainant, to kill, except the statement of the complainant in that regard. Complainant, in his complaint alleged that accused threatened him to kill but in his testimonies, the PW3 complainant has not stated so. He has only stated that accused threatened him on telephone to withdraw the complaint case, otherwise he and his family will face consequences. No other PW had stated that the complainant was threatened by the accused. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (X) of SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) C. C. No. 1/11 18/19 Act 1989 and u/s 506 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Mahavir Singh Yadav is acquitted of offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (X) of SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and u/s 506 IPC. Accused is acquitted in the present case.
The previous bail bonds of accused is cancelled and his surety is discharged. Accused to furnish bail bond in terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ and one surety to the like amount for the period of six months.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (LAL SINGH)
on 29th March, 2012 ASJ02/FTC, PHC/ND
29.03.2012
C. C. No. 1/11 19/19