Delhi District Court
State vs Surender Malik on 12 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-02
( NORTH ):ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 30/17)
357/2017
FIR No. 156/2017
Police Station S.P. Badli
Charge sheet filed 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act
Under Section
Charge framed Under 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act
Section
State V/s Surender Malik
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Malik
R/o H. No.446, Khasra No. 50/14
Khera Garhi Colony,
Near Baba Mohan Ram Mandir
Village Khera Kalan,
Delhi-110082.
......Accused
Date of institution 01.07.2017
Arguments concluded on 12.07.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 12.07.2024
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that on 07.06.2016, the complainant Ravinder Kumar made a complaint to the FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 1 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik police at PS S.P. Badli that he was working as a senior draftsman in Naval Headquarters and was residing in village Khera Garhi alongwith his family. He was unwell in the night and was facing some discomfort when his neighbour accused Surender Malik who was a resident of house No. 446, started abusing him and made caste related remarks i.e. "Bhole Baba Mujhe Bacha lo, Sai Baba Mujhe Bacha lo" and "Bachao-Bachao". Accused Surender Rana/Surender Malik came outside his house and started passing castiest remarks by saying "Chuda Chammar". He was saying this at the top of his voice. He also abused him and said "Yahan aake kaise bas gaya hai, tujhe Navy ka afsar mai banata hun". He came out of his house and the accused caught his neck and pulled him and abused him. Neighbours and his relatives gathered over there and pacified the accused. He went to his house. That incident took place on 28.05.2016 at about 9 pm. On 29.05.2016 in the morning at about 7 am the accused again came alongwith some gunda elements and stopped the way of the complainant and again made caste related remarks saying "Chammar Chudha" and that she should go away from there as she spoiled the entire atmosphere of the village. Feeling harassed the complainant made a complaint to the SHO. On the same very day when the complainant was coming back to his house after making a complaint about the accused, the accused again obstructed his way and used caste related remarks by saying "chamaar saley inka bhoot main utarta hoon"
in front of his daughter in law and also threatened him with dire consequences if he did not leave the village.
The present FIR had been registered vide order dated 17.02.2017 on the orders of the Ld. Magistrate on the application u/s 156(3) CrPC.FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 2 of 21
State Vs. Surender Malik
2. During investigation, the IO recorded statement of the witnesses namely Sunita, Sushil Kumar, Neelam, Anil Kumar, Nishu and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 3(i)(r)
(s) of the POA SC/ST Act was filed in the court.
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 10.10.2018 charge u/S. 3(i)(r)(s) of the POA SC/ST Act against accused namely Surender Malik was made out. The formal charge as above was framed on the said date to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 10 witnesses in all.
i. PW1 is Sh. Pritam Singh. He deposed that in the month of April/May, 2017, he was posted as Tehsildar, Alipur, Delhi and a letter bearing No. 1298/SHO/Alipur dated 17.04.2017 was marked to him. On checking the record, no certificate No. 1749 dated 11.04.1986 was found. On fresh local enquiry conducted through beat staff, it has been revealed that as per the statement of the residents nearby at the address given, Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o H.. No. 433, Village Khera Garhi colony, Khera Kalan belongs to Jatav Chamar caste. He prepared report dated 20.05.2017 Ex. PW1/A. Alongwith the report, he had annexed the report Ex. PW1/B furnished to him by the Patwari.
ii. PW2 is HC Gulzar was the duty officer who proved FIR Ex.
FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 3 of 21State Vs. Surender Malik PW2/A, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B and certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/C. After registration of FIR, he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to HC Narender to be handed over to ACP Vikram Singh for investigation purposes.
iii. PW3 Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposed that he was working at Naval Headquarters as a Senior Draftsman and his office is situated in R. K. Puram, Delhi. He was residing at H. No. 433, Khera Garhi Extension, Near Baba Mohan Ram Mandir, Village Khera Kalan, Delhi from the last six years.
He has further deposed that he was not feeling well since 16.05.2016 and he was present at his house after taking medical leave. On 28.05.2016, at about 9:00 pm, he was not feeling well and was loudly praying to the God by saying "Bhole Baba mujhe bacha lo, Sai Baba mujhe bacha lo" and "Bachao- Bachao". Accused Surender Rana/ Surender Malik came outside his house and started passing castiest remarks by saying "Chudha Chammar". He was saying this at the top of his voice. He also abused him and said "Yahan aake kaise bas gaya hai, tujhe Navy ka afsar mai banata hun". He came out of his house and the accused caught his neck and pulled him and abused him. Neighbours and his relatives gathered over there and pacified the accused. He went to his house.
He has further deposed that on 29.05.2016, in the morning hours, he came out of his house at around 7:00 am. Accused Surender Rana along with some gunda associates stopped his way and again stated and made castiest remarks saying at the top of his voice "chammar Chudha" and he demeans him FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 4 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik by saying that he should go away from there, as he had spoiled the entire atmosphere of locality and he would not allow him to settle there. He somehow saved his life and went inside his house. However, he did not mend his way in giving harassment and continued to pass castiest remarks and abuses to him.
He has further deposed that on 30.05.2016, he went to police station and made a complaint to the police official of PS S. P. Badli, but police did nothing and even did not give receipt of his complaint.
He has further deposed that on the same day, when he was coming back to his house, after making his complaint, the accused met him near his house and stopped his way in front of his house. The accused again abused him and said "chamaar saley inka bhoot main utarta hoon." The accused abused him in front of his daughter-in-law, who had been married recently and also threatened him by saying that he should run away, otherwise he will be vanished. He has further deposed that the accused was present with his some gunda type persons, when he threatened him and passed castiest remarks.
He has further deposed that on 06.06.2016, he gave typed complaint Ex. PW3/A to Chairman, SC/ST Commission, DCP office, ACP office and SHO, PS S. P. Badli. He also gave complaint to his office that he had been harassed by accused and his associates regarding harassment being Scheduled Caste and accused passed castiest remarks on him. Police did not register case on his complaint, therefore, he filed a complaint case Ex. PW3/B in the court with application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR, affidavits, Memo of Parties and list of witnesses.
FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 5 of 21State Vs. Surender Malik PW3 has further deposed that he also annexed the documents i.e. his Election Identity Card, Caste Certificate, complaints posted to the different authorities and senior police officials with complaint. Ld. MM directed for registration of case on 17.02.2017 and FIR was registered in PS S. P. Badli. His Caste Certificate Ex. PW3/C was verified. He belong to Chamar Jatav caste. Accused Surender Malik belonged to Jaat category. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
iv. PW4 Smt. Sunita deposed that she belong to schedule caste community and her husband was working in Sena Bhawan. Ravinder was his neighbourer and belonged to SC Community. She correctly identified the accused Surender Malik in the court. Accused belongs to Jaat Community.
She has further deposed that on 28.05.2016 at about 9 PM, she along with her husband were sitting outside their house. They heard a noise coming out of the house of Ravinder who said that "bhole mujhe bachale, sai baba mujhe bachale". Ravinder was suffering from ailment for the last 2 - 3 days and he was shouting loudly "bhole mujhe bachale, sai baba mujhe bachale". Suddenly, accused Surender Malik came out of his house and started abusing Ravinder in the Gali. Accused Surender Malik was shouting loudly "Chude Chamar yaha par kaha se aa kar bas gaye, inko rehna sikhauga, tere ko navy ka officer bnauga, tera pata bhi nahi chalega". Accused Surender Malik attacked on Ravinder and both scuffled with each other. They intervened and separated both of them. Thereafter, both left for their house.
She has further deposed that on 29.05.2016 in the morning hours at about 7 am, accused Surender Malik came out of his house and started abusing loudly to Ravinder "aaja chude chamar tera bhoot main utarta hu". She along with her husband also called in the PS Alipur where police made inquiry FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 6 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik from her and her husband and her statement was recorded by the police. v. PW 5 Sh. Sushil Kumar deposed that he was residing at H. NO. 203, Khera Garhi Colony, Delhi - 110082 for the last twenty years and belongs to Jatav Community and was working as MTC at South Block, Defence Head Quarters, Delhi. Ravinder S/o. Tek Chand was residing in his neighbourhood and his house was situated at a distance of about 50 steps away from his house and he belonged to Jatav Community. He correctly identified accused Surender Malik in the court and he belongs to the Jaat Community.
He has further deposed that on 27.05.2016 before 9:00 PM, he heard accused Surender Malik was abusing Ravinder. Accused was abusing with filthy words to the mother and sister of Ravinder. He along with his wife were sitting outside the house and other locality members were present in the Gali. They all heard the said abused hurled by accused to Ravinder. Public persons and neighbourers pacified accused and also made Ravinder to understand and not to indulge in any argument. Both accused and Ravinder left to their houses. They also went inside their house.
This witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and during cross-examination nothing came out.
vi. PW-6 Sh. Nishu deposed that on 28.05.2016 at about 09:00 PM on the day of Saturday he went to the house of his relative Ravinder for some work. He alongwith Urmila w/o Sh. Ravinder were sitting in the baranda on the ground floor of the house of Ravinder who was sitting in a room at the first floor of the said house. Ravinder was not feeling well. He heard Ravinder said "bhole mujhe bacha le, sai baba mujhe bacha le". He correctly identified the accused Surender Malik. Accused used to reside in the same gali/street where the house of Ravinder was situated. The house of accused was residing at the FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 7 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik corner of the street. Accused came in the gali/street and started abusing loudly in filthy words. Accused said "chude chamar tumhe main rehna sikhaunga, kaha se aake bas gaye yaha par, tereko Navi ka afsar banaunga, tera pata bhi nahi chalega". Thereafter accused keep abusing Ravinder in loud voice. Ravinder was present outside his house when the accused started abusing and passing casteist remarks. The accused started manhandling with Ravinder who was standing outside his house. He intervened between them and he alongwith Ravinder went to his house.
vii. PW-7 Ms. Neelam deposed that she alongwith her family were residing in H. No. 449, Near Mohan Baba ka Mandir, Delhi as a tenant and they shifted to abovenumber house owned by Ramesh. Earlier her house was near the house of Ravinder.
She has further deposed that about 4-5 years ago when they were residing near the house of Ravinder, a quarrel took place between accused Surender Malik and Ravinder. She correctly identified accused Surender Malik in the court. She has further deposed that due to depression she used to forget things/facts therefore she did not recollect as to what was the issue between accused and Ravinder on which they were quarreling with each other.
She was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State but nothing has come in her cross-examination.
viii. PW-8 Sh. Anil Kumar deposed that he alongwith his family were residing in H. No. 449, Near Mohan Baba ka Mandir, Delhi as a tenant and they shifted to above number house owned by Ramesh. Earlier his house was near the house of Ravinder.
He has further deposed that about 1½ -2 years ago in the evening hours a quarrel took place between accused Surender Malik and Ravinder. He FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 8 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik correctly identified the accused Surender Malik in the court. He has further deposed that he intervened in the quarrel and separated them and thereafter he went inside his house. After about 20 days since this quarrel they shifted their house to another street of the same locality and thereafter he do not know what happened.
He was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State but nothing has come in his cross-examination.
ix. PW-9 ACP Shri Rajnish deposed that on 03.03.2017 he was posted as ACP of Sub Division Alipur. On that day the present case filed was received by him for further investigation. He perused the same and found the present case was registered on the complaint filed by the complainant before Ld. MM. He has further deposed that on 16.03.2017 Complainant Shri Ravinder Kumar alongwith Smt. Sunita, Sushil Kumar, Neelam, Anil Kumar and Nishu came to his office. He recorded the statement of all the above witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
He has further deposed that on 24.05.2017, he alongwith Inspector Satish Kumar went to Rohini Court Complex in court room no.202. The accused Surender Malik surrendered before the court. He moved an application Ex.PW-9/A for interrogation and arrest of the accused which was allowed by the Ld. Court. He interrogated and arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/B. Personal search of accused was conducted memo Ex.PW9/C. The accused was produced before the Court and was granted bail by the Ld. Court. The identity of accused was not disputed by defence as exempted for today.
The caste certificate of complainant was already placed on the record as attached with complaint caste. He got verified the said caste certificate of complainant and others from Tehsildar Sub Division, Alipur who gave detailed report dated 26.05.2017 of caste certificate verification FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 9 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B and he placed the same on record.
He has prepared chargesheet against the accused and sent to the Court.
x. PW-10 Inspector Satish Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2017, he alongwith ACP Rajnish went to Rohini Court Complex in court room no.202. The accused Surender Malik surrendered before the court. IO moved an application for interrogation and arrest of the accused which was allowed by the Ld. Court. IO interrogated and arrested the accused vide arrest memo. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW9/C . The accused was produced before the Court and he was granted bail by the Ld. Court. The identity of accused was not disputed by defence counsel as exempted for that day.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
5. After closure of PE, the statements of accused Surender Malik was recorded on 08.05.2024 under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied all the evidence put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused had not chose to lead defence evidence in his favour.
6. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard Mr. Nishant Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Mr. Bharat Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused Surender Malik.
FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 10 of 218. It was argued on behalf of State that the allegations leveled against the accused are of serious nature. It was further argued that all the witnesses have clearly proved the chain and the manner of offence and prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the accused persons deserve to be convicted.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused Surender has argued that accused has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that there was no incriminating evidence against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued that there is no independent witness who proved that any cast related remarks were made by the accused in public view. It is submitted that accused deserves acquittal.
FINDINGS
10. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 11 of 2111. Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
12. In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. The accused Surender Malik had been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities Act).
14. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under:
Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities Act)
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.
(1) Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe-
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 12 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view ;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view ;
15. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESS
16. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW3 Ravinder Kumar who is the complainant in the present case. He has deposed as under :
PW3 Ravinder Kumar deposed as under:
"-------that he was working at Naval Headquarters as a Senior Draftsman and his office is situated in R. K. Puram, Delhi. He was residing at H. No. 433, Khera Garhi Extension, Near Baba Mohan Ram Mandir, Village Khera Kalan, Delhi from the last six years.
He has further deposed that he was not feeling well since 16.05.2016 and he was present at his house after taking medical leave. On 28.05.2016, at about 9:00 pm, he was not feeling well and was loudly praying to the God by saying "Bhole Baba mujhe bacha lo, Sai Baba mujhe bacha lo"
and "Bachao-Bachao". Accused Surender Rana/ Surender Malik came outside his house and started passing castiest remarks by saying "Chudha Chammar". He was saying this at the top of his voice. He also abused him and said "Yahan aake kaise bas gaya hai, tujhe Navy ka afsar mai banata FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 13 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik hun". He came out of his house and the accused caught his neck and pulled him and abused him. Neighbours and his relatives gathered over there and pacified the accused. He went to his house.
He has further deposed that on 29.05.2016, in the morning hours, he came out of his house at around 7:00 am. Accused Surender Rana along with some gunda associates stopped his way and again stated and made castiest remarks saying at the top of his voice "chammar Chudha" and he demeans him by saying that he should go away from there, as he had spoiled the entire atmosphere of locality and he would not allow him to settle there. He somehow saved his life and went inside his house.
However, he did not mend his way in giving harassment and continued to pass castiest remarks and abuses to him.
He has further deposed that on 30.05.2016, he went to police station and made a complaint to the police official of PS S. P. Badli, but police did nothing and even did not give receipt of his complaint.
He has further deposed that on the same day, when he was coming back to his house, after making his complaint, the accused met him near his house and stopped his way in front of his house. The accused again abused him and said "chamaar saley inka bhoot main utarta hoon." The accused abused him in front of his daughter-in-law, who had been married recently and also threatened him by saying that he should run away, otherwise he will be vanished. He has FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 14 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik further deposed that the accused was present with his some gunda type persons, when he threatened him and passed castiest remarks.
He has further deposed that on 06.06.2016, he gave typed complaint Ex.
PW3/A to Chairman, SC/ST Commission, DCP office, ACP office and SHO, PS S. P. Badli. He also gave complaint to his office that he had been harassed by accused and his associates regarding harassment being Scheduled Caste and accused passed castiest remarks on him. Police did not register case on his complaint, therefore, he filed a complaint case Ex. PW3/B in the court with application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR, affidavits, Memo of Parties and list of witnesses.
PW3 has further deposed that he also annexed the documents i.e. his Election Identity Card, Caste Certificate, complaints posted to the different authorities and senior police officials with complaint. Ld. MM directed for registration of case on 17.02.2017 and FIR was registered in PS S. P. Badli. His Caste Certificate Ex. PW3/C was verified. He belong to Chamar Jatav caste. Accused Surender Malik belonged to Jaat category. He correctly identified the accused in the court."
17. PW3 Ravinder has detailed the incident dated 28.05.2016 and how the accused passed casteist remarks by saying that on 28.05.2016, at about 9:00 pm, he was not feeling well and was loudly praying to the God by saying "Bhole Baba mujhe bacha lo, Sai Baba mujhe bacha lo" and "Bachao- Bachao". Accused Surender Rana/ Surender Malik came outside his house and FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 15 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik started passing castiest remarks by saying "Chudha Chammar". Said witness again deposed that on 29.05.2016 as he came out of his house in the morning at about 7 am accused and his associates stopped his way and made caste related remarks. Similarly, he has narrated the incident dated 30.05.2016. He has proved the complaint Ex. PW3/A made to the DCP office and the complaint case filed before the Ld. Magistrate Ex. PW3/B. He also proved his caste certificate Ex. PW3/C.
18. Coming to the requirements of Section 3 (r) & (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. For an offence under both these Sections, it is necessary that insult/intimidation or abuses should have been hurled upon the member of SC/ST in public view.
19. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view".
20. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 16 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law.
21. At this stage, it is relevant to quote the relevant case laws of the Hon'ble Superior Courts on the aspect of public view interpreted for the purpose of SC/SCT POA Act in the case titled as Daya Bhatnagar Vs. State 109 (2004) DLT 915 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi decided on 28.04.2020:
"........In other words, it is patent that, therefore, to bring a matter within the scope and ambit of expression "public view" firstly the words must be uttered at a place which is within public view and it is unnecessary that the number of public persons herein should be more than one. Even if one or two members of the public hear and view, as the case may be, the same and the other ingredients of section are satisfied, the case would fall within the ambit of said provision."
"........Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3 (i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (however small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded".
".........I accordingly hold that expression within "public view" occurring in Section 3 (i) (x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 17 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used."
22. In Crl. REV. P. bearing No. 622/2013 titled as STATE Vs. OM PRAKASH RANA & ORS decided on 17.12.2013, the Hon'ble Justice Ms. Veena Birbal held as under :
"10. In the present case, the original complaint lodged by the complainant does not mention in whose presence the offending words were used by the respondents/accused persons. There is also nothing on record to show that the respondents/accused persons were having the knowledge that the complainant was a member of SC/ST community. There is nothing on record to show that the offending words were used in full public view. The names of alleged witnesses are not mentioned in the complaint dated 18.7.2012. The witnesses i.e. Meenakshi and Durga Dutt have alleged themselves to be the eye witnesses.
But their names have not been stated by the complainant in her complaint. The supplementary statement dated 27.8.2012 of the complainant giving the names of alleged witnesses can't fill up the lacuna. There is also delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR. The delay is also not explained. The basic ingredients of Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act are missing in the present case. There is no illegality in the impugned order which calls for interference of this court. The revision petition is dismissed."FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 18 of 21
23. Thus, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that remarks, if any, were passed in 'public view' in the presence of independent witnesses. Now, coming to the testimony of other material witnesses PW4 Sunita. She has deposed that on 28.05.2016 and 29.05.2016 she heard the accused abusing the complainant loudly with caste related remarks. However, in her cross- examination she admits that she was not present at the place of altercation which took place beteween the complainant and the accused and in her cross- examination, she further admitted that she had not heard the complete arguments between the two parties and categorically admitted that she had heard never heard any caste related remarks and that it is only on the request of the complainant who had approached her she is giving her statement. She further admitted that she never informed to the police officials about use of any caste related remarks. As such, she being a close neighbour residing near the house of the complaiant and knowing him well for the past 20 years, cannot be deemed to be an independent witness in the light of the law as laid above and as such in her cross-examination, she has completely resiled from her earlier version and categorically admitted that she had not heard any caste related remarks being passed by the accused. In such a scenrio, her testimony cannot be given much weightage and the accused cannot be solely convicted based on her testimony.
24. The next material witness relied by prosecution was PW5 Sushil Kumar. However, even, he stated that he never heard any caste related remarks. In the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. APP for the State, he categorically denied the suggestion that on 28.05.2016 and on 29.05.2016 he heard the accused using caste related remarks being said by the accused to the FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 19 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik complainant. Thus, even from the testimony of PW5, despite lenghty cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, nothing incriminating could be culled out against the accused.
25. Next material witness was PW6 Nishu,however, she is admittedly the relative of the complainant and not an independent witness, complainant being her husband/Chacha and even she belongs to the same caste/community.
26. PW7 Neelam also did not support the prosecution story. In the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. APP for the State, she categorically denied the suggestion that on 28.05.2016 and on 29.05.2016 she heard the accused using caste related remarks being said by the accused to the complainant. Thus, even from the testimony of PW7, nothing incriminating could be culled out against the accused.
27. PW8 Anil Kumar also did not support the prosecution story. In the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. APP for the State, he categorically denied the suggestion that on 28.05.2016 and on 29.05.2016 he heard the accused using caste related remarks being said by the accused to the complainant. Thus, even from the testimony of PW8, nothing incriminating could be culled out against the accused.
28. At most, above said witnesses have proved the factum of quarrel which took place between the complainant and the accused but none of the witnesses have proved that what were the exact words which were exchanged and all witnesses have denied hearing any caste related remarks. PW6 Nishu was the close relative of the complainant.
FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 20 of 2129. Remaining witnesses were police officials who had deposed regarding the manner of investigation.
Conclusions 30 Thus, in view of the above said findings, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Surender Malik made any caste related remarks in the prsence of independent witnesses and within public view thus, ingredients of Section 3(i)(r)(s) are not proved. Hence, accused stands acquitted of the offences u/s 3(i)(r)(s) of the POA SC/ST Act.
31. File be consigned to the record room.
32. Needless to say, that in view of Section 357A Cr.P.C. the victim would be entitled to compensation even though the accused has been acquitted, if not awarded so far by the Delhi State Legal Authority, as may be permissible, as per rules and in accordance with law.
Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 12.07.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 21 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 21 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik FIR No. 156/2017 Page No. 22 of 21 State Vs. Surender Malik