CRIMINAL MISC. No.21-MA of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.M.No.21-MA of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 11.7.2011 Balwinder Singh APPELLANT VERSUS Balkaran Singh and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vivek Goyal, Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. MAHESH GROVER, J. This is an application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal in this Court against the order of the learned Special Judge, Faridkot dated 4.12.2008 whereby he refused to proceed with the complaint moved by the appellant under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 447,427,432,500, 139/34 I.P.C. The appellant has alleged that he and his mother Jangir Kaur (since deceased) filed a complaint alleging that Jangir Kaur, mother of the present appellant belonged to the Scheduled Caste and that the respondents were the CRIMINAL MISC. No.21-MA of 2009 -2- accused persons who wanted to teach her a lesson. To do so, they hatched a conspiracy and illegally started digging a pond in front of her house, so that dirty water would collect there and create nuisance. She protested, but they felt annoyed and entered her house and dismantled the manger and also uprooted 7 trees from her land took them away. They also abused her and uttered derogatory words against her caste and insulted her. The learned trial Court proceeded with the matter and upon appraisal of the evidence, concluded that there was a rivalry between the villagers and the pond which was alleged to have been dug up by the respondents, was in fact, existing 50 to 60 years back and was on the Municipal land. There was also evidence on record suggesting that the pond belonged to the village. The complaint was initiated by Jangir Kaur, who is no more now. The appellant who is the son of Jangir Kaur, was not cited as a witness, although he had appeared in the witness- box after having been substituted as a complainant and stated to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. When the complainant did not cite the present appellant as a witness to the occurrence, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charge, and the evidence led by the appellant is of no worth and credence, because the appellant was not cited as an eye-witness by the deceased/complainant. In this eventuality, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the respondents. No ground to grant relief is made out. Application thus stands dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) July 11, 2011 JUDGE GD