IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 115/2005 Date of decision: 09.11.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Chander Shekhar ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 no For the Appellant: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Suneel Mohan Goel, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 3(x) of Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989 which has been challenged by the State in the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that the General House meeting of Gram Panchayat Malag was called on 7.4.2002 in the Government School premises at Kangu to discuss the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - increase in house-tax. The respondent was the President of the Panchayat. He presided over the meeting. Bali Ram complainant was also present in the meeting. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Bali Ram objected to the hike in tax, being poor and would not be able to bear such an increase thus requested to reduce the tax. Respondent asked complainant Bali Ram to sit down uttering the word “chamar-julaha” and he had no right to speak and lowered down his image publicly. Complainant asked the respondent not to use such words, in turn accused used abusive language and directed Chowkidar to turn him out. 4. It is alleged that respondent belonged to an upper caste (Brahaman community) he intentionally used these words to defame him. The complainant alleged that he had earlier sent an application to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission about the incident which was got compromised on 5.8.2002 but his signatures were obtained on some document which was not read over and explained to him. Thereafter on 4.9.2002 he filed the complaint Ext. P1 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police which culminated into FIR Ext. PW5/A under the aforesaid Sections. - 3 - 5. PW7 Dy. S.P. Parma Nand investigated the case. After recoding the statement of the witnesses finding substance in the allegations, filed the challan in the court for the trial of the respondent. 6. The respondent was accordingly charge sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He took up the stand that the complainant owed rent of the Panchayat shop leased out to him but despite issuance of various notices, he failed to make the payment, ultimately a case was filed against him to recover the amount. He denied the alleged incident as projected by the complainant. Though he admitted that the complainant was ‘chamar’ by caste, yet denied having uttered such words to him. 8. When called upon to enter into his defence, he examined DW1 Sanjeev Kumar, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to prove the notices and the resolution of the Panchayat issued to recover the rent and also produced DW 2 Jaswant Singh who was present in the meeting. He stated that a deliberation was going on in the - 4 - meeting with respect to the increase of the house- tax under the Chairmanship of respondent. At that time, Bali Ram claimed that the tax being levied was in excess. He then abused respondent and tried to hit him with a danda but respondent did not utter even single word against him. This witness was also ‘chamar’ by caste. He denied having uttered words ‘chamar/julaha’ to the complainant in the meeting nor respondent stated that he had no right to speak. 9. DW3 Som Raj Kalia, Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) was deputed in the supervisory capacity by the Deputy Commissioner to attend this meeting. He denied that respondent had uttered such words to the complainant. 10. DW4 Thakur Dass produced the notice issued by the BDO against the complainant for the recovery of the rent amount and copy of the proceedings of resolution No. 7 passed against the complainant for such recovery. 11. Complainant himself admitted that he had already compromised the matter with the respondent but stated that the contents of the compromise were not read over and explained to him though he admits that its copy was supplied to him. There appears to be no cause to file the - 5 - present complaint, after about five months against the respondent. However, he admitted that 10-12 persons were present at Barasar when compromise was got effected. Significantly, he stated that prior to the incident, he had issued a press note against the respondent who was Pradhan, for selling Turi @ 130-135/- per quintal as against as 115/-, rate, fixed by the BDO. 12. Further, on the scrutiny of the evidence I also find material contradictions with respect to the words spoken by the respondent. Some stated that respondent uttered the word ‘chamar’ against him and some says ‘chamar-julaha’ and also ‘julaha’. Whereas he himself stated that respondent addressed him ‘chamar’ and asked him to sit down. There is quite conflicting evidence with respect to words used by the respondent in the meeting. On the top of it the Secretary (PW4) who was present and the defence witness (ADO) DW3 who was an official representative of the Deputy Commissioner denied such an incident. 13. Though the complainant denied that he nourished any grudge against the respondent yet evidence shows that there was an old enmity inter - 6 - se the complainant and the respondent which give inkling about their strained relations. 14. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, I find that there is conflicting evidence with respect to the alleged incident, as stated by the complainant and his witnesses. The shop under the tenancy of the complainant was earlier under the control of the Block Development officer which was lateron transferred to the Panchayat and the complainant was in heavy arrears of rent. When respondent started recovery proceedings and the case was filed against him for recovery thereof shows their strained relations. 15. Further the complaint which was allegedly sent by him to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission was not produced on record in order to know what were initially the allegations in that complaint. The present complaint was only filed much after the compromise, which could be the result of due deliberations and in order to score personal vendetta. 16. Also the prosecution has not brought on record any notification that ‘chamar-julaha’ falls within the category of scheduled-caste/Scheduled- - 7 - tribe, as notified under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. 17. Therefore, in view of the above stated reasons, on legal and factual analysis, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. 18. The bail bonds entered upon by the respondent, at any time during the proceedings of this case stand discharged. November 9, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.