Crl. Appeal No.217-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.217-MA of 2008 Date of decision:01.12.2008. Channa Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. **** Present: Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate,for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 3 (1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 323,506/34 IPC against the respondent/accused on the allegations which stand quoted in paras 2 and 3 of the complaint. On appraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the following observations:- “16. But on the other hand, the ld. Defence counsel has contended that the version of the complainant as made out in the complaint has not been proved on the record by him in his evidence and hence the prosecution version as alleged has not been proved on the record beyond shadow of doubt. In this regard, he has contended that it is the case of complainant that at the time of alleged occurrence PW Mithu Singh son of Thana Singh and Billu Singh son of Mewa Singh reached at Crl. Appeal No.217-MA of 2008 -2- **** the spot, who separated him from the clutches of the accused. Then in this regard further he has contended that it is also the case of the complainant that said Mithu Singh and Billu Singh also tried to persuade the accused persons, but even then the accused persons continued uttering defamatory words with regad to his caste. Then it is also the case of the complainant that accused also caused injuries to him. The above said entire facts are mentioned in detail in para No.4 of the complaint Ex.PA, but the complainant while appearing in the court as PW1 during the trial of this case has not stated anywhere that he was got separated by said Mithu Singh and Billu Singh from the clutches of the accused and that said persons also tried to persuade the accused persons and inspite of that the accused persons continued to utter defamatory words with regard to his caste. Then it is also not stated by him as PW1 that the accused persons had beaten him. Here, he is also silent about similar complaint which his wife has filed against accused Sukhpal Singh and his father Baldev Singh. This fact is very much mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint. So, in the light of the above discussed statement of P.W.1 complainant Channa Singh, it is concluded that some vital facts which are mentioned in the complaint Ex.PA have not been stated by him while appearing in the court as a witness. 17. Then it is the case of the complainant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the presence of Mithu Singh Crl. Appeal No.217-MA of 2008 -3- **** son of Thana Singh in front of the house of said Mithu Singh, but the complainant has not examined this material witness during the trial of the case. Said Mithu Singh had appeared as PW2 in the court of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate at the time of recording preliminary evidence but this material witness has not been examined by the complainant at the time of trial of this case. So, in these circumstances, presumption is that in case said Mithu Singh had been examined by the complainant/prosecution, then he might not have supported the case of the prosecution. 18. Then there is also a material discrepancy in the prosecution case. Complainant Channa Singh as P.W.1 has not stated anywhere that accused persons had uttered the alleged defamatory words with regard to his caste with an intention to defame him. Even this fact is also not found mentioned in the body of the complaint Ex.PA. 19. Then the complainant as P.W.1 has stated that he went to the police station, but the police did not listen to his complaint and hence he has filed the instant complaint, but in the body of the complaint, it is not mentioned anywhere that the complainant had gone to the police and the police did not listen to his complaint. 20. Then PW2 Billu Singh in his cross examination has shown his ignorance regading some material facts, for Crl. Appeal No.217-MA of 2008 -4- **** instance, in his cross-examination he has stated that he does not know if any case against the sons of Mithu Singh witness for inflicting injuries to Sukhpal Singh son of accused Mithu Singh is pending. Further, he has stated that he does not know if accused Sukhpal Singh is a Government employee.” It is not the plea on behalf of the appellant/complainant that any part of the observations recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate proceeds on factually incorrect premise. It is further apparent from the record that the prosecution allegations in entirety had not been owned either by the appellant/complainant or by PW-2 Billu Singh at the trial. Insofar as Mithu Singh is concerned, he was examined in the preliminary evidence but not examined thereafter in substantive evidence. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the appeal is held to be devoid of merit and it is held that there are no ground to grant the leave to appeal to the appellant/complainant. Dismissed. December 01, 2008 (S.D.ANAND) Pka JUDGE