Delhi District Court
Sc No: 353/21 State vs . Chander Shekhar on 2 June, 2023
SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 353/2021
CNR No. DLSW01-003157-2021
FIR No. 96/2021
Police Station Dwarka North
Under Section U/s 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act &
U/s 506 IPC
State
Versus
Chander Shekhar
S/o Sh. Roop Chand
R/o RZ-118, 2nd Floor,
Above Roop Jewellers, Z-Block,
Main Road Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi. ... Accused
Date of institution 09.08.2021
Judgment reserved on 02.06.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 02.06.2023
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 11
SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in the present case for passing caste based derogatory remarks to complainant "PK" and to threaten complainant to face dire consequences.
2. FIR in question was registered on the complaint of complainant "PK" (PW1), which reads as under: -
"सववनय वनवव दन हह कक, मम पप......... टटइल लगटनव कट कटम करतट हह । मम धयटडक मजदरह क करतव हहए अपनट गह जर बसर करतट हह । वतरमटन समय मम , मम सह लह कहल ववहटर मम एक वनमटरणटधकन ईमटरत मम कटम कर रहट हह और वहक रह रहट हह । इस ईमटरत मम कटम मम मम जवश कहमटर कव दव ख रव ख मम कर रहट हह , वजसकट वनमटरण मम जवश कहमटर जक कर रहव हह । यहटह गपरटहक अपनक टटइलस कट चयन सवयम करतव हह , जब भक ककई गपरटहक सटइट पर आतव हह , तक हम उनकव दटरट चयन कक हहई टटइलस कव आधटर पर हक टटइलस लगटतव हह । टटइलस कव चयन कव ववषय मम हक वदनटमक : 21/01/2021 कक मम जवश जक नव वकसक कक सटइट पव बह लटयट हहआ थट। वव लकग मम जवश कव सटथ टटइलस कट चयन कर रहव थव , इसक ददरटन वहटम रटवतपर 9:00 बजव कव वबच चनदर शव खर हटथ मम हवथयटर लव कर आयट, आतव हक उसनव मम जवश और मह झव गटलक दव तव हहए कहट, सटलल तह मनव मह झ सव पहछव बह गर पटटकर कक कहसव बह लट वलयट, सटलव चमटरक अपनव आप कक बहहत बडव ठव कवदटर समझनव लगव हक कयट, तह म सटलव चमटर बवहन कव लकडक, आज अपनव आप कक मव रव सव ऊपर समझनव लगव हक, और यह कहतव हहए मम जवश कक थपपड Judgment 2 of 11 SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar और लटत सव मटरनव लग। कटफक जकर जकर सव गटलक दव नव कक आवटज सह न कर वनचव सव वबवलडम ग मम कटम करनव वटलव और लकग भक ऊपर आ गए, जक कक उसक वबवलडम ग मम रहतव हह । वहटह मदजहद सब लकग उसकव हटथ मम हवथयटर दव ख डर कव कटरन चह प चटप खडव रहव कयलवक वह नशव कक हटलत मम भक लग रहट थट। हमम डर थट कहक वह गकलक न चलट दव हम लकगक कक वह कटफक दव र तक जटवत सहचक शबद कहतट रहट और सटथ मम गनदक गनदक गटवलयटम दव तट रह। यहटह तक कक मम जवश कक घर वटलक जक कक चमटर जटवत सव हक हह , उसकव बटरव मम कहनव लगट कक तव रक उस चमटरक कक तव रव सटमनव हक आपनव सटथ सह लटऊहगट और अगर तहनव मव रव कहव अनह सटर कटम नहकम वकयट तक इसकव बटद हमनव उसकक कहट कक आप सह बह आ कव बटत करनट, अभक आप हकश मम नहकम लग रहव , तभक वह सकढयल सव वनचव कक और जटनव लगट, तक ऑधरव कव कटरन उसकट पह र वबजलक कक तटरक मम उलझ गयट, वजसकव कटरन वहटह वबजलक भक चलक गयक और वह वगर गयट। उसकव बटद उसकक पटटकर नव और मम जवश नव गटडक मम बह ठट वदयट। इतनट सब हकनव कव बटद भक वह यह बकलतव हहए जट रहट थट कक सटलव चमटरक तह महव अब मम वजनदट नहकम छकडहम गट। आगव सव मह झव वकसक पटटकर सव बटत करतव हहए वमलव तक तह म दकनल कक खह र नहक। और अब दव खनट पह वलस तह महरट कयट हशर करव गक अब मम तह महरक वक हटलत कर दम ग ह ट कक तह म लकग आगव जकवन मम कहछ नहकम कर पटओगव । यव कह कर वक वहटह सव चलट गयट, मम इसकव कटरन कटफक घबरट गयट और अपनव ठव कवदटर कक कहट कक अब यह हमटरट कयट करव गट, तक ठव कवदटर नव कहट सह बह आरटम सव बटत कर लम गव , अभक वह नशव कक हटलत मम लग रहट थट, लव वकन जह सव हक सह बह हहई हम लकग वबवलडम ग मम कटम कर रहव थव तक वनचव सव हमटरक सटथक आयव और कहट कक चनदर शव खर और उसकव कहछ सटथक कटफक गह ससव मम तह महरव बटरव मम पहछ रहव हह । हम इस बटत सव घबरट कर वपछलक गलक सव वनकलतव हहए वहटह सव वनकल गए, कयलवक हम लकग समझ गए थव कक वह हमटरव सटथ मटर वपट करनव आयट हह । इसकव बटद हम पह वलस सटव शन गए। जहट पर हमनव एक पह वलस वटलव कक अपनक आप बकतक बतटई, तक उसनव कहट कक तह मनव गलत एवम पह सव वटलव आदमक Judgment 3 of 11 SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar सव पनगट लव वलयट हह , अब वह तह महव कहक कट नहकम छकडव ग यट तक चह प चटप यहटह सव वनकल जटओ और जट कव उसकव पह र पकड लक, अगर उसकक रव हम आ गयट तकह तह महव मटफ कर दव गट, नहकम तक वह तह म लकगक कक अब वजनदट नहकम छकडव गट। हम यह बटत सह न कर बहहत घबरट गए और वहटह सव भक भटग गए अब हमव कहक भक ककई रटसतट नजर नहकम आ रहट थ। हम गरकब लकगक कट सटथ दव नव कक वलए ककई नहकम थट। इसकव बटद मम अपनव गटम व चलट गयट और मव रव ठव कवदटर नव कहट कक मम यहटह मटमलट शटम त करकव तह महव बह लट लहमगट और मम तह रम त गटम व वनकल गयट। लव वकन गटम व मम दक तकन वदन कव बटद मह झव पतट चलट कक चनदर शव खर नव मव रव और मम जवश कव वखलटफ पह वलस मम कमपलम ट दजर करवट दक, वजसमव हमटरव वखलटफ सम गकन आरकप लगटए गए हह । इसकव बटद अब मह झव यककम हक गयट थट कक अब वह हमम जकनव नहकम दव गट। अब एक तरफ पह वलस हमव ढहमढ रहक और दस ह रक तरफ वह अपनव गह म डल कव सटथ आ कर हमटरक तलटश कर रहट हह ।
मह बहहत गरकब पवरवटर सव तटलह क रखतट हह , मह बडक मव हनत करकव मह वशकल सव अपनव पवरवटर कट गह जर बसर कर रहट हह । ककपयट करकव मव रक इस यटवचकट कक सम जटन मम वलए जटए। और मह झव इस चनदर शव खर सव बचटयव जटए और इसकव दटरव मह झव जटवत सहचक गटवलयव दव नव पर इसकव वखलटफ कटनहनक करवटयक जटए।
तववरत कटयरवटहक कक अपव कट करतव हहए।"
3. During investigations of the case, statement of complainant "PK" (PW1) and eye witnesses Pawan Kumar (PW2) and Farman Chauhan (PW3) were recorded who supported version of complainant. Site plan of place of Judgment 4 of 11 SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar occurrence was prepared. Caste certificate of complainant was got verified.
4. On the basis of investigations, accused Chander Shekhar was charge-sheeted under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for short {SC/ST (POA) Act} and under Section 506 IPC.
5. Vide order dated 25.11.2022 charge under Section 323/506(II) IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 (complainant) "PK" who deposed that on 21.01.2021, he was working under construction building and was staying there. One Manjesh Kumar was taking care of the construction which Judgment 5 of 11 SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar was done by him. On that day, he called some persons at site. At about 9.00 pm, accused Chander Shekhar came at the site alongwith 3-4 persons and some heated exchanges took place between Manjesh and some other persons present with accused. Thereafter, matter escalated and on the asking of other laborers present at the spot, a complaint was made by him after about one month of the incident. Complainant proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A, his caste certificate as Ex.PW1/B. Complainant categorically deposed that accused did not give beatings to him nor he give any castiest remarks to him nor he threatened him.
7. Since complainant (PW1) did not support prosecution case, he was declared a hostile witness. PW1 was cross- examined by ld. Additional PP and during his cross- examination, he maintained that accused did not give beatings to him nor he give any castiest remarks to him nor he threaten him.
Judgment 6 of 11
SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar
8. PW2 Pawan Kumar deposed that the date of incident, accused Chander Shekhar came at the spot in drunk condition and he fell down as his feet got tangled in the wires. Mangesh and "PK" (complainant), who were present at the spot, were abused by accused in name of their mother and sister and thereafter, Madaan, his wife made accused to sit in car and then they left from there. PW2 also did not support prosecution case, he was declared a hostile witness. PW2 was cross-examined by ld. Additional PP at length but no incriminating material could be elucidated from his testimony also. PW2 categorically deposed that accused neither give any castiest remarks nor give beatings nor restrain way of complainant.
9. PW3 Farman also deposed that on the day of incident, he was doing tiling work in house of Manjesh. At about 8.30- 9:00 pm, he got call from Manjesh and he stated to him that some client has arrived and he wanted show sample of tiles to Judgment 7 of 11 SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar them. He started showing tiles to those people. At that time, Manjesh, Aadil, one uncle, one heavy built man and one woman were present. Chowkidar was also present at the spot. While discussion at first floor that heavy built man started arguing with Manjesh, that lady and uncle. That heavy built man was abusing them in filthy language. Then, all of them left from there. PW3 also did not support prosecution case, he was declared a hostile witness. PW3 was also cross-examined by ld. Additional PP at length but no incriminating material could be elucidated from his testimony also. PW3 also categorically deposed that accused neither give any castiest remarks nor give beatings nor restrain way of complainant.
10. Since material witnesses PW1 to PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on material aspects and deposed nothing incriminating against accused, prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed.
Judgment 8 of 11
SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar
11. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 294 CrPC admitted registration of FIR as Ex. PX-1, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PX-2, caste verification report of complainant as Ex. PX-3, caste certificate of complainant Ex.PW1/B, scaled site plan prepared by ASI Hardeep Singh as Ex. PX-4 and order of DCP Santosh Kr. Meena nominating ACP Vijay Singh as the Investigating Officer as Ex. PX-5. As such, formal proof of above documents were dispensed with.
12. As no incriminating evidence came on record against accused recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
13. I have heard State through Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Additional PP for State and Dr. Naresh C. Sharma, ld. counsel for accused. I have also perused entire material on record.
Judgment 9 of 11
SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar
14. Complainant (PW1) did not support prosecution case in respect of the allegations appearing in the FIR. Complainant deposed that accused did not give caste based derogatory remarks to him nor blocked his way. He denied that accused gave beatings to him.
15. PW2 and PW3 both of them deposed that they did not witness any such incident. They categorically deposed that accused neither give any castiest remarks nor give beatings nor restrain way of complainant in their presence. No other witness is cited or examined by the prosecution who could have linked accused with the alleged crime.
16. In the light of testimonies of complainant and eye witnesses which are exonerating accused, it is held that prosecution has failed to establish charge against accused.
Judgment 10 of 11
SC No: 353/21 State Vs. Chander Shekhar
17. Accordingly, accused Chander Shekar is acquitted. His personal bond is canceled and surety is discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the surety. In terms of Section 437(A) CrPC accused is directed to furnish personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for period of six months.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 02nd day of June 2023. Digitally signed by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2023.06.02 17:20:37 +0530 Gautam Manan Additional Sessions Judge-02 South-West District, Dwarka Court New Delhi Judgment 11 of 11