Criminal Misc. No.208-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.208-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 18.8.2008 Kartar Singh .....Appellant Versus Tarlok Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant S. D. ANAND, J. The prosecution allegation is that the respondent/accused uttered the following words at a public place against the caste of the complainant:- “SALE MAJHBIA, SALE KUTIA, VAKHDE HAN TOO KIVEN ATHE VASNA HAI. TUSHI KAMINA NOO TO CHHITTAR CHANGA, TUSHI CHITTAR TON HE KABOO ANDE HO.” “TENU CHITRA NAL PEET PEET KAR LAL KAR DIYAN GE, HARAMI, KAMIN, AH PIND CHAD JA, VERNA JAN GAVANYEN GA.” The prosecution presentation was disbelieved by learned Trial Court with the following observations:- “After hearing both the sides and considering the entire Criminal Misc. No.208-MA of 2008 -2- **** material and evidence available on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution case is based mainly on three witnesses. Testimony of PW2 Satnam Singh does not help the prosecution case at all rather contradicts the prosecution case. As per PW2 Satnam Singh, the accused persons had uttered the words, “Majbhi Kutia” etc. He made a specific mention in his examination-in- chief itself that nothing beyond that was uttered. This witness was not sure about the month, date and year of occurrence. He deposed in his opening line of examination-in-chief that accused persons were having dispute regarding some land and nothing beyond that. Meaning thereby, this witness supported the defence version as put forwarded by the accused person in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the documentary evidence adduced by accused that there was civil litigation between the parties and to pressurise the accused persons to compromise in the said case, this false complaint was filed against the accused persons. In his cross examination, the said witness admitted that the shops are at a distance from the place of occurrence and no shopkeepers came to the spot as the shops are at a distance of ten acres. So this witness also established that the place of occurrence is not a public place and general public was not having any approach to the spot. Criminal Misc. No.208-MA of 2008 -3- **** On this point, I place my reliance upon authority of law from Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pishora Singh's case (supra). In the case in hand also the alleged words were uttered at a place outside the house of complainant but that place was not even used by the general public and as such that was not a public place. In the case in hand also there are no allegations that accused persons uttered the derogatory words with intention to insult and humiliate the complainant and his caste. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx So the testimony of PW3 cannot form basis of conviction of accused persons for the offences alleged against them because the statement made before the court by PW3 is at complete variance with the facts as stated in the complaint and as per statement of complainant. He has nowhere mentioned that complainant was belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and this fact was in the knowledge of accused persons. He was facing a criminal trial alongwith complainant and probably that was the reason for his appearance in the court to depose against the accused persons. On this point, I place my reliance upon authority of law from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Gatubha Mohansingh Jadeja and others case (supra). In the above referred authority of law the Criminal Misc. No.208-MA of 2008 -4- **** complainant and his witness could not depose before the court actual words which were uttered by the accused persons and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court laid down the law that to establish the conviction the actual abusive words uttered by the accused must be brought on record, it is not the case before the Court in the case in hand.” The Trial Court had taken a possible view after analysing the prosecution evidence on the touch stone of cross-examination. The view obtained by the learned Trial Court cannot said to be perverse in any manner. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it is so ordered accordingly. August 18, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Criminal Misc. No.208-MA of 2008 -5- ****