IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 579 of 2000. Judgment reserved on: 27.2.2008 Date of decision: 28.2.2008. State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Nand Kishore …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 12.5.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kasauli at Solan in Case No.31/30 of 2000/96, acquitting the respondent under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Right Act, 1955 ( for short Act) in FIR No. 43/96 dated 21.6.1996, Police Station Barotiwala. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondent on 20.6.1996 and 21.6.1996 at Himachal Fibre Limited, Barotiwala encouraged the practice of untouchability by uttering words “Chamar Ki Aulad Yahan Se Chaley Jao Chamron ke lia yahan koi jagah nahin Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… hai” to Brahama Nand and his family and also insulted him on account of untouchability. Brahama Nand complainant lodged report at Police Station on 21.6.1996 and thereupon FIR No.43/96 under Section 7 of the Act was registered. After completion of the investigation challan was filed against respondent under Section 7 of the Act, accordingly notice of accusation was put to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he pleaded his innocence, but led no evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent as noticed above, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent and gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that learned Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record. The prosecution has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent has uttered insulting words to the complainant and his family and has encouraged untouchability. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment, the learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent after appreciating the material on record. 4. PW-1 Brahama Nand has stated that respondent resides at a distance of 50 yards from his residence. On 20.6.1996 at about 8.30 he was in his room with his children. The respondent told the …3… children of complainant that they are the children of Chamar, therefore, leave the place. This place is not meant for them and run away from there. The respondent by addressing him as Chamar has lowered his cast. In cross-examination he has admitted that a case under Section 325 IPC is pending against him and Jaswant is also an accused in that case and that case was started prior to the present case. He has also admitted that because of the union activities the respondent has filed 2/3 cases against him in the Police which are pending. The respondent thereafter never defamed him and his family. 5. PW-2 Om Parkash has stated that he and Jaswant Singh were sitting in the varanda, children of Brahama Nand were watching TV in the adjacent room of Raja Singh. The respondent was standing there. The respondent said to the children of Brahama Nand that they are the children of Chamar and leave the place. The respondent also told Brahama Nand that since he is a Chamar what he will do, their reputation has been lowered when he addressed them as Chamar. He has also stated that respondent is a man of good character and he does not defame any body. PW-3 Jaswant Singh has stated that on 20.6.1996 children of Brahama Nand were watching TV in the room of Raja Ram, Nand Kishore came to his room and told the children of Brahama Nand that they are the children of Chamar and leave the place. The respondent came next day also and said that leave the place as they are Chamars. 6. PW-4 Pankaj Sharma has proved the Scheduled Caste Certificate Ex.PW-2/A of Brahama Nand. PW-5 Gurdiyal Singh is the …4… Investigating Officer and has stated that the incident was of 20.6.1996 at 8.30 but complainant came to the police on 21.6.1996 at 8.10. PW-6 Smt. Sheela Devi is the wife of complainant Brahama Nand and she has stated that she does not remember the date, month and year. She has stated that her children were watching TV in the room of Raja Singh. The respondent addressed her son Chamar and he would kill him. He also hurled abuses, on this her son Nek Ram brought these facts to the notice of his father. In cross-examination she has stated that her husband Brahama Nand was not there when respondent abused, rather he was taking his bath. PW-7 Nek Ram is the son of Brahama Nand. He has stated that he does not remember the year. In the evening he was watching TV in the house of Raja Singh neighbor. Nand Kishore came there and told him that he is a son of Chamar and leave the place. He also hurled abuses. In cross- examination he has stated that on the spot except Raja Singh and his brother none else was there. PW-8 Dhanvir Singh Sub Inspector has stated that after completion of the investigation he submitted the challan in the Court. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. respondent has pleaded his innocence. 7. PW-1 Brahama Nand has stated that on 20.6.1996 at about 8.30 he was in his room with his children, respondent called his children as Chamar and leave the place. He has stated nothing about the alleged occurrence dated 21.6.1996. The statement of PW-1 regarding the alleged incident of 20.6.1996 is not inconsonance with the statements of other witnesses. PW-7 Nek Ram son of PW-1 Brahama Nand has stated that he was watching TV in the house of …5… Raja Singh and respondent came there and uttered objectionable words. He has also stated that Raja Singh and his brother were only there and none else. He has ruled out the presence of PW-1 at the time of incident. Similarly, he has stated that alleged occurrence has taken place at the residence of Raja Singh whereas PW-1 has stated that such incident had taken place in his own residence. PW-6 Sheela Devi wife of PW-1 Brahama Nand has also stated that her children had gone to the house of Raja Singh for watching TV where the alleged occurrence had taken place. Her husband Brahama Nand was not there, rather he was taking bath. PW-2 Om Parkash was not inside the room. He was sitting out side the room along with Jaswant Singh as claimed by him. He came to know the alleged occurrence later on and therefore, he is not an eye witness. PW-3 Jaswant Singh is interested witness as he is a co-accused in a case under Section 325 IPC along with PW-1 Brahama Nand filed by respondent. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 are formal witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record and has correctly drawn inference from the material on record that prosecution has failed to make out any case against respondent. No case for interference has been made out. Hence, appeal is dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge February 28, 2008 (sks)