CRR No. 156 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 156 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.03.2011 Raja Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. K S Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 02.06.2007 passed by the Special Court, Bathinda, acquitting accused/respondent No. 2 by giving him the benefit of doubt. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner who is the complainant filed a complaint on 05.03.2005 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda against Kaur Singh-respondent No. 2, alleging therein, that he belongs to Majhbi Sikh Caste and on 26.05.2005, he was abused by respondent No. 2 on the name of his caste. Respondent No. 2 was charge sheeted under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of CRR No. 156 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the prosecution led their evidence and examined two eye witnesses and two police witnesses. However, Special Court, Bathinda, vide its judgment dated 02.06.2007, after recording the evidence, acquitted accused respondent No. 2 by granting him the benefit of doubt. While challenging the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had acquitted respondent No. 2 by giving him the benefit of doubt merely on the ground that the petitioner had given two version regarding the same incident, whereas, the petitioner was illiterate and was not aware of the earlier application and as such, the order of acquittal should be set aside. Heard. Argument of the learned counsel stands dealt by the trial Court as under:- “15. Cross examination of PW1 establishes that his supporters present on police post on the day of occurrence insisted that action should be taken against Kaur Singh. Thus, it is obvious that in view of insistence by supporter of PW1, he has moved application EX PA alongwith copies thereof to Shri Kiranjit Singh Gehri and others. This conduct PW1 as such establishes that PW1 due to some extraneous consideration implicated the accused. It is admitted by PW1 in cross examination that his uncle Patangi Singh contested elections of Panchayat at the time, when accused also was one of the contesting candidates. When such is the position, then complainant may have attempted to implicate adverse to have revenge from the accused. PW1 claimed to have filed oral complaint before police Post, Pathrala on the day of occurrence, CRR No. 156 of 2008 (O&M) 3 but in fact that complainant is in writing because Ex DC admitted by PW1 to be filed by him, as such self contradictory versions even given by PW1. Only that person will suffer self contradictory versions, who is not telling the truth.” The motive behind the subsequent changed version is therefore evident. The prosecution examined PW1 (complainant), PW2 (Bhola Singh-eye witness) and PW4 (another eye witness), whereas, it is an admitted position that the incident relates to 26.02.2005. On 26.02.2005, itself, a complaint was made, copy thereof was proved as Ex. DC. It is further admitted that no allegation inviting offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act was alleged. Thus, the earlier version in Ex.DC given to Incharge, Police Post Pathrala was totally different than the version given in EX PA on the basis of which the FIR was registered. The subsequent complaint on the basis of which, FIR was registered was made after almost 20 days of the said occurrence on 17.03.2005. Hence, the same is an improved version after deliberation and an after though making the story doubtful. No other argument was raised. In view of the above, there is no ground to set aside the well reasoned judgment dated 02.06.2007 passed by the Special Court, Bathinda thereby acquitting accused/respondent No. 2 by giving him the benefit of doubt. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) 5.03.2011 Judge mohan