IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.A-263-MA of 2011 Date of Decision : October 21, 2011 Sardara Singh ....Applicant Versus Rajpal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for the applicant. T.P.S. MANN, J. The complainant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2.11.2010 passed by Special Judge, Sangrur whereby the accused respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Alleging that the accused had used derogatory words against his caste, the applicant, who claimed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste, moved applications before the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur with regard to the incident which, according to him, had taken place on 8.7.2004 at about 4.00/5.00 p.m. According to the Criminal Misc. No.A-263-MA of 2011 applicant when no action was taken against the accused, he submitted an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dhuri on 21.8.2004. Vide report dated 12.9.2004, the S.H.O. confirmed the incident as conveyed by the applicant and directed registration of the FIR. The matter was, thereafter, got enquired from District Welfare Officer who confirmed the incident in his report dated 19.10.2004. While accepting the report of the District Welfare Officer, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur vide letter dated 2.12.2004 asked the Senior Superintendent of Police to register a case and, accordingly, FIR No. 334 dated 3.12.2004 was lodged against the accused. However, when the police did not take any action against the accused, the applicant was forced to file a criminal complaint. After going through the preliminary evidence led by the applicant, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri found a prima facie case punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Act against the accused and after securing their presence committed the case for trial. The Special Judge, Sangrur after scrutinizing the complaint and file of the lower Court charged the accused of the offence under Section 3(x) of the Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On the same allegations, challan was also presented by the police. Once again, the accused were charged for the offence under Section 3(x) of the Act. On -2- Criminal Misc. No.A-263-MA of 2011 22.11.2007, both the cases were clubbed. The prosecution, thereafter, examined PW1 Sardara Singh, PW2 Gulam Rasool, PW3 Jagdev Singh, PW4 Malwinder Singh, PW6 Constable Jagjit Singh and PW7 Nirbhai Singh. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused, pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. According to them, a ration depot in the name of Jagdev Singh, son of the complainant, was got cancelled by them due to irregularities committed by him and out of that grudge the complainant falsely implicated them. In defence, they examined DW1 Jarnail Singh, Panchayat Secretary, DW2 HC Gurmeet Singh, DW3 Balwinder Kumar and DW4 Nahar Singh. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution remained unsuccessful in bringing home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, benefit was extended to the accused and they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complaint submitted by him to the police was enquired by the senior officers and only, thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to register an FIR. -3- Criminal Misc. No.A-263-MA of 2011 Though the FIR was, thereafter, registered but the police, in connivance with the accused, presented a cancellation report. Even the report of the higher officers has been rejected by the trial Court, in view of the testimony of DW4 Nahar Singh when he claimed that there was no such gathering on 8.7.2004 as alleged by the complainant whereas a perusal of the report would show that the incident in question occurred in the gathering held on 8.7.2004. After going through the evidence, the trial Court had found that the complaint submitted by the complainant before Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and so also before the District Welfare Officer, Sangrur were found to be baseless and concocted one. Both these functionaries had concluded that the complainant was unable to digest suspension of ration depot in the name of his son consequent upon complaints submitted by the accused and he had only taken undue advantage of the incidental fact being member of the Scheduled Caste. That being the position, the complainant could not be heard saying that the allegations levelled by him against the accused stood substantiated during the enquiry conducted by the senior police officers. As regards DW4 Nahar Singh, it is apparent that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste and had deposed that no such gathering where the accused might have insulted the complainant -4- Criminal Misc. No.A-263-MA of 2011 in the name of his caste, had taken place on 8.7.2004. He did not deny that any such gathering had taken place on 8.7.2004. On the other hand, he meant that the accused did not insult the complainant in the name of his caste at the time when gathering took place on 8.7.2004. PW3 Jagdev Singh, who is son of complainant Sardara Singh had conceded before the trial Court that his ration depot was suspended on 15.4.2004 and restored only in the month of January, 2005. He also admitted that the suspension of ration depot followed a resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat in that regard. Premjit Kaur wife of accused Rajpal Singh was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, while Kesar Singh accused was also Member Panchayat. Similarly, PW5 Sardara Singh admitted that he himself ran ration depot from the year 1988 to 2000 and consequent upon a complaint filed by one Lal Singh of the complainant running the ration depot while being in government service that his ration depot was cancelled. Only the complainant while appearing as PW5 and his son Jagdev Singh while appearing as PW3 had come in support of the prosecution against the accused. One Nirbhai Singh, who was examined by the complainant as PW7 deposed that there was fight between his uncle on one side and one Kulwinder Singh alongwith accused Kesar Singh, on the other. Regarding that -5- Criminal Misc. No.A-263-MA of 2011 incident, FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered and he had, thereafter, deposed against Kesar Singh. He also deposed that though the incident as alleged had taken place on 8.7.2004 but could not state as to whether subject matter of discussion was cancellation of ration depot or otherwise. He went on the state that no son of Sardara Singh was present in the gathering on 8.7.2004. This demolishes the case of PW3 Jagdev Sigh, who had deposed about the gathering of 8.7.2004 and the accused using derogatory remarks regarding the caste of the complainant. In view of the above, no case is made out for the grant of special leave to the applicant to appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused/respondents of the charge under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The application is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 21, 2011 JUDGE satish -6-