Crl. Appeal No.371-MA of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Appeal No.371-MA of 2009 Date of Decision: 07.05.2010 Ashok Kumar ....Appellant Versus Diwan Chand & others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the appellant. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is an appeal against the Order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, vide which, the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had examined himself as PW1 and his wife as PW2 and both have supported the case of the prosecution. In spite of that, the trial Court wrongly acquitted the accused persons. Further, the respondents could not have been acquitted only on the ground that no Scheduled Caste certificate was issued by the competent authority to show that the appellant belongs to that caste. Crl. Appeal No.371-MA of 2009 2 Heard. No ground for grant of leave to appeal is made out. The respondents-defendant produced as many as seven witnesses. In fact, the respondents proved on record that a lot of litigation was pending between the appellant and his wife and the respondents. Moreover, the complainant could not even prove that they belonged to Balmiki caste. No Scheduled Caste Certificate was produced on record. The first allegation was that the respondents had made allegations inside the Court room, whereas, no application/complaint regarding the incident was filed by the complainant either before the Court or before the police. With respect to the second incident, which is stated to have taken place on 12.12.2004, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had not visited the house of the accused on this particular day, where, the incident is stated to have occurred and it is their own version that only Shashi Bala and Sonia had entered the house of the accused. Shashi Bala and Sonia do not belong to Scheduled Caste. In any case, the said incident is not in a public view and hence, the ingredients of the offence under this Act is not made out. The third allegation is stated to be at the police post. However, no alleged eye witness has been examined. With respect to the eye- witness Darshan Singh and Ishwar Singh, Darshan Singh has not been examined, whereas, Ishwar Singh was given up as having been won over by the accused. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 07.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet