IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 2003 Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Petitioner. Versus Lekh Raj ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General For the Respondent: Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). Accused Lekh Raj has been charged for offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant Dumnu Ram filed a complaint against the respondent accusing him for insulting him as a member of Scheduled Caste. The case alleged is that the respondent-accused belongs to Brahamin caste and that complainant belongs to the Chamar caste. On 7.2.2001 around 7 PM in the shop of Subhash, the complainant was purchasing some commodities when the accused came there on his tractor and parked it outside the shop of Subhash Chand. To defame him, 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 he shouted ‘Oah Chamara tuh yahan kiya kar raha hai’ and then he entered the shop and caught hold of him from his neck, dragged and gave him fist blows and while doing so, he was saying ‘Do takey ka Chamar hai’. It is stated by the complainant that respondent glared at him menacingly and told that he would kill him. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court finds that Subhash Chand PW2 was the shop owner and PW3 Karam Chand was also present in shop of PW2. The complainant PW1 Dumnu Ram states that he was purchasing articles from the shop of PW2 when accused came in his tractor and uttered the words as aforesaid. All these witnesses have admitted that one Roda Ram was asking Subhash Chand for credit which was refused, upon which the accused offered to pay for commodities. Thereupon Dumnu Ram who was in a drunken state, started fighting with the accused, asking him as to who was he to intervene in the matter. On this, a fight ensued in which PW3 Karam Chand intervened. It seems from the suggestion in evidence that the complainant gave shoe beating to the accused. While considering the evidence of these witnesses, the learned Court has taken a note of the complaint made by Karam Singh, PW3 on 8.2.2010 which he admits he was tried and fined by the Panchayat. He has also admitted his signatures on statement Ext.DA given before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nurpur wherein he admitted going to the police station alongwith Dumnu Ram and complaint Mark A made by PW3 Karam Singh where he had accused Dumnu Ram of beating the accused with shoes. Further DW2 Hardit Singh, President of Gram Panchayat Dainkwan has stated that on 7.2.2001 Lekh Ram had filed a complaint regarding quarrel which had taken as complaint Ext.DW2/A and one complaint made by Karam Singh with respect to the beatings given to him 3 by Dumnu Ram. On the complaint filed by Karam Singh, the Panchayat summoned Dumnu Ram and Karam Singh. Dumnu Ram failed to appear before the Panchayat. In these circumstances, the Court holds that no offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. I cannot take a different view than the one which has been taken by the learned trial Court. I find from the evidence on record that rather than establishing the case against the accused, it is the complainant who seems to be belligerent. There is thus no merit in this appeal. I find that judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. July 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge