Criminal Misc. No.318-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.318-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 3.10.2008 Bhim Sain ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner/complainant filed a (private) complaint against the private respondents/accused under Sections 3(i), 3 (ii), 3 (iii) and 3 (x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and under Sections 323,506, 34 IPC on allegations which may be indicated as under:- The petitioner/complainant is 'Bazigar' by caste which (caste) has been indicated as Scheduled Caste in the gazette notification issued by the State of Haryana. On 4.4.2002, the then learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, passed an order in Civil Suit No. 37 of 2002 for removal of a liquor vend from the area of village Dadlu. Inspite thereof, the private respondents/accused tried to open the liquor vend on 14.5.2005 at about 5.00 P.M. The petitioner/complainant, alongwith few others, Criminal Misc. No.318-MA of 2008 -2- **** reached over there. The respondent/accused Ronki Ram caught hold of the petitioner/complainant from latter's neck; while respondents/accused Ajmero Devi, Sher Singh and Kartar Singh gave fist blows and kick blows to him on his chest and back. Respondent/accused Kartar Singh passed urine in an iron box which he poured into the mouth of the complainant. Thereafter, all the private respondents/accused filthily abused him. The details thereof are given in para 4 of the impugned order. Thereafter, private respondents/accused forcibly caught the complainant, tore off his wearing apparel and left him only in an undergarment. Besides this, they also painted his face with mud. However, the attempt made by the private respondents/accused to take the petitioner/complainant out in a procession through the village was thwarted by the respectables of the village and friends of the complainant. The impugned occurrence was witnessed by Jagir Singh, Sohan Lal and Satpal. Learned Special Judge noticed the delay in filing of the complaint. It also found variations in statements of PW-1 Bhim Singh and his real brother PW Satpal Singh in the matter of mode of conveyance used by them to reach the Police Station and also on the point about whether medico legal examination of the former had been conducted or not. In the former context, it was noticed that PW-1 Bhim Singh told the Court that he and Sat Pal had gone to the Police Station on a Motor-cycle belonging to the latter but Satpal told the Court that they had gone to the Police Station in a three Criminal Misc. No.318-MA of 2008 -3- **** wheeler. The learned Special Judge also noticed that there was an abortive attempt made by the complainant Bhim Singh to conceal his exact relationship with Sohan Lal PW. In that context, it was noticed that Bhim Singh denied having any relationship with Sohan Lal; whereas latter conceded in the course of cross-examination that the complainant is his real nephew (Bhanja). It also noticed that PW-3 Satpal (real brother of the complainant) again made an attempt to conceal that relationship by averring that Sohan Lal was related to him but was not their real maternal uncle. In the face of the categorical statement made by PW-2 Sohan Lal, the statements made by the complainant and Sat Pal to the contrary are falsified in toto. Learned Special Judge also noticed that the “actual words uttered by the accused person have not been deposed before the court. Although in such like cases, the requirement of law is that the witnesses must depose before the court that what were the actual words uttered by the accused persons and some were uttered with the intention to defame the complainant and same acts were done so as to defame the complainant.” Learned Special Judge noticed the motive which actuated the petitioner/complainant to file the impugned complaint. The following facts were noticed in t hat context:- “There were number of criminal and civil cases pending between the complainant and accused persons and father of the complainant and accused and present Criminal Misc. No.318-MA of 2008 -4- **** complaint might have been filed as a counter blast to the same. Copies of such litigations are Ex.D3 to Ex.D8 on the file. Ex.D3 is the copy of complaint filed by Mangat Ram, who is father of present complainant Bhim Sain and the said complaint was filed against Raman Kapoor and Ronki Ram etc. for the offence under section 323, 504 IPC etc. and complaint was filed on 31.10.2002. Ex.D4 is the copy of the plaint in application under order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. filed by Mangat Ram, father of present complainant against Ram Kapoor, Ronki Ram and others and the said application was filed on 7.11.2002. The defence version is that Mangat Ram, father of complainant had filed the civil suit regarding agricultural land against Ram Kapoor. Out of this land, accused Sher Singh had purchased 25 Kanals 2 Marlas of land and accused Avtar Singh and Ronki Ram are the witnesses of the sale deed, Ajmero accused is Sarpanch of village Dadlu and wife of accused Ronki Ram. Ex.D9 is the copy of sale deed of land mentioned in Ex.D6 and complaint and his father wanted to purchase the said land from Raman Kapoor and when the said land was purchased by accused No.3, complainant and his father and brother had started to harass and humiliate the accused No.3 and accused No.1 being the identifier of the said documents and that was a motive for false implication of Criminal Misc. No.318-MA of 2008 -5- **** the accused persons in this case.” I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. October 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE