Criminal Misc. Application No. No. 308-MA of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CRM. A. No.308-MA of 2010 Date of Decision:June 28, 2010 State of Haryana ...........Appellant Versus Dharam Pal and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Satyaveer Yadav,Deputy Advocate General Haryana for the applicant-appellant. ** Sabina, J. Complainant filed a complaint under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC & 3(vi)(x)(xv) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (`the Act' for short) against accused- Dharam Pal and others-respondents. Vide judgment dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Ambala, respondents-accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them . Hence, the appellant has filed this application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court, in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- Criminal Misc. Application No. No. 308-MA of 2010 2 “ 2.In short, the case of the Complainant, as set-up, in the complaint is that she is a resident of village Kalal Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Earlier she used to work as a sweeper in the houses of Dharam Pal and Roop Singh. However, she stopped working in the houses of the accused as she was not paid in cash and kind and accused wanted her to do the job without any remuneration i.e. as Begaar under the threat that if she will not do that, she will have to face dire consequences or thrown out of the village as had happened in the case of other families. It is alleged that on 22.8.1995, Accused Sandeep son of Roop Ram, Balli, Dharam Pal came to her house and threatened her son Rajinder that if they do not come to their houses for doing Begaar, they would be killed. Rajinder and her brothers were alone and were annoyed over it but being poor people, kept silent. Complainant has alleged that Accused Baali and Sandeep had also grappled with her son on that count and they were given slaps and kick blows. On 23.8.1995, at about 5.30 A.M., she had taken her small children out for answering the call of nature on the edge of a Gohar which is a public place. She was stopped by Sandeep and Balli, who threatened her as to why she had allowed her children to answer the call of nature on the Gohar. She was intimidated by saying that they would not allow them to pass the stool there, if the scheduled caste people do not do their Begaar. At this, she stated that her children were passing the stool on the Govt. road and the Accused had nothing to do with it. Complainant has alleged that while she was having conversation Criminal Misc. Application No. No. 308-MA of 2010 3 with the Accused, there came her son Raj Kumar. At this, Saneep and Balli caught hold of her by her arms. Accused Sandeep declared that he would settle the matter once for all. Saying this, he took out a knife like object from the pocket of his pant and gave a blow on the right eye of the Complainant. She fell down. Raj Kumar rescued her. In the meantime, Accused Roop Singh also came to the spot and told Sandeep and Balli that they had done the right thing. Accused Sandeep and Balli also started abusing them. There also came Mukandi Lal and Surinder Kumar. On seeing them, Accused ran away leaving the Complainant there. Her son Raj Kumar took her to the police post and reported the matter vide Report No.3 dated 23.08.1995. She and her son continued to visit the police post to know the fate of her complaint, but without any effect. Ultimately, she was told on 17.12.1995 that no case was made out and that they may file the complaint. Hence the complaint. Earlier to this occurrence, Sharda Ram, Zandu, Sandhu Ram, Atma Ram, Mam Raj and others, all Harijans were forced to leave the village by Accused as they had refused to work for the Accused without wages.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the application for grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Ambala is liable to be dismissed. Learned Special Judge in para 12 of its judgment has observed as under:- “I have already allured to the case of the Complainant. The case Criminal Misc. Application No. No. 308-MA of 2010 4 of the Complainant is that Accused had forced her to do Begaar. They had caused injuries to her son Rajinder Kumar. They had manhandled her. Complainant has appeared as her own witness and she has examined her two sons in support of her case. The one independent witness has not supported her case. I have carefully perused the testimony of the Complainant and her sons. I am of the considered view that her testimony of the Complainant as well as the testimonies of her sons do not inspire any confidence. The husband of the Complainant was working in Indian Army. Her son is a PWD employee of the State Govt. Her husband was drawing pension. Complainant has admitted in her testimony that after the death of her husband, she is drawing pension. In these circumstances, it is not expected of her to do the job of sweeper in any house. It appears that there is enmity between the parties and on account of the same, the Complainant has filed this complaint to teach them a lesson. I am of the considered view that Complainant has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the accused. Accordingly, I hereby acquit the accused. File be consigned to the record room.” The reasons given by the trial Court are sound reasons. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat 2002(1)RCR(Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against Criminal Misc. Application No. No. 308-MA of 2010 5 acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1)scc 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” Keeping all these facts and circumstances in mind, the learned trial Court had, thus, rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge June 28, 2010 arya