IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2511 of 2008 Date of decision : July 17, 2009 Jai Dev Shastri ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with Mr. PR Yadav, Advocate, for complainant-Laxmi Devi L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Jai Dev Shastri has filed the instant revision petition assailing order dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, holding that case under section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act) is made out against the accused-petitioner. Laxmi Devi lodged FIR, Annexure P/3, alleging that she is employed as Safai Karamchari in Government School where the accused- petitioner is employed as Teacher. On the day of occurrence i.e. on 23.7.2003 at about 7.00 AM, she was sweeping a room in the school. The petitioner was already sitting in that room. The petitioner abusing the complainant remarked as to why the complainant was sweeping the Criminal Revision No. 2511 of 2008 -2- room while he was sitting there. The petitioner asked the complainant to go away and pushed her 2/3 times. The petitioner also snatched the broom from the complainant and took out its stick and started beating the complainant. Her noise attracted Ramesh, Pawan Kumari and Neelam who witnessed the occurrence. FIR was registered under sections 323 and 354 IPC. However, challan was presented under sections 323, 506 IPC. At the time of hearing on charge, it was argued on behalf of the prosecution and complainant that offence under section 354 IPC is also made out. However, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Rewari vide order dated 3.3.2004, Annexure P/4, negatived this plea and found that prima facie case under sections 323 and 506 IPC only is made out and notice of accusation was accordingly served on the petitioner. Said order was not challenged by the prosecution or the complainant. Part evidence of the prosecution was recorded and thereafter application under section 323 of the Code of Criminal Code (for short, Cr.P.C.) was moved for committing the case to Special Court for trial of the case for offence under section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Rewari vide order dated 3.9.2004, Annexure P/2, dismissed the said application. Complainant Laxmi Devi preferred revision petition against said order. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide impugned judgment dated 7.9.2008, Annexure P/1, allowed the revision petition holding that prima facie case under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is made out. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Criminal Revision No. 2511 of 2008 -3- In the original FIR, no allegation regarding remarks with reference to caste of the complainant was made to the police nor any such allegation was made in the supplementary statement made by the complainant or by the witnesses in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. made to the police. However, in the witness box for the first time, the complainant stated that the petitioner had also addressed her as 'Chuhri' at the time of occurrence. Obviously this statement cannot be accepted as this material improvement was made for the first time during the course of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that from the prosecution version, no case for offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is made out because there is no allegation that the petitioner intended to dishonour the complainant or to outrage her modesty and in fact plea of the complainant and the prosecution for offence under section 354 IPC stood negatived vide order dated 3.3.2004, Annexure P/4, which was not even challenged. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner intended to dishonour the complainant and therefore, case under section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act is made out. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Clauses (x) and (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act are reproduced herein:- “(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view ; Criminal Revision No. 2511 of 2008 -4- (xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.” Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment has held the case to be covered by clause (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act. This clause refers to the intent of the accused to dishonour or outrage the modesty of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe . In the instant case, there is not even an allegation that the petitioner intended to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner gave beatings to the complainant and the occurrence was witnessed by some eye witnesses and therefore, the act of the petitioner would fall within the purview of word 'dishonour' used in clause (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act. The contention, although attractive at first blush, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the complainant means to contend that even insult or humiliation of a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would be covered by clause (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act. However, in fact it is not so because insult or humiliation of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is covered by clause (x) of section 3(1) of the Act. Clause (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act refers to only a woman (and not a male) belonging to a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The clause refers to intent of the accused to dishonour or outrage the modesty of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. It is, therefore, manifest that clause (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act does not cover insult or humiliation in general and reference to dishonour of a female in the said clause would cover attack on honour of a female analogous to outraging of modesty which expression Criminal Revision No. 2511 of 2008 -5- has also been used in clause (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act. At no stage, the complainant alleged that the petitioner ever intended to outrage her modesty or wanted to dishonour her. From the narration of occurrence in the FIR, it is manifest that the petitioner felt offended because the complainant started sweeping the room while the petitioner was sitting there. The occurrence took place on the spur of the moment. Feeling offended by the aforesaid action of the complainant, the petitioner allegedly thrashed her. The question of intention of the petitioner to dishonour the complainant or to outrage her modesty does not arise from the narration of the occurrence by the complainant in the FIR itself. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment dated 17.9.2008, Annexure P/1, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari is set aside and order dated 30.9.2004, Annexure P/2, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Rewari dismissing the prosecution application under section 323 Cr.P.C. is restored. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 17, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'