Delhi High Court
Bhoop Singh Gautam vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 17th July, 2018
+ CRL.A. 1090/2017
BHOOP SINGH GAUTAM ... Appellant
Represented by: Dr.Naipal Singh, Advocate
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State with ACP Rajbir Singh
and Insp. Arun Dev Nehra,
SHO, PS Paschim Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.No.19665/2017 (exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.A. 1090/2017
1. By this appeal the appellant challenges the order dated 3 rd August,
2017 whereby the learned Special Judge discharged respondent No.2 to 4 of
the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC ST
(POA) Act) and also seeks transfer of investigation.
2. The main reason for discharge of respondents No.2 to 4 was that the
appellant who was a complainant neither named the public witnesses nor
produced them nor was it recorded that the derogatory casteist remarks were
made within public view and in the presence of witnesses, hence the
ingredients of offences punishable under Section 3(1) (r) & (s) of the SC ST
(POA) Act were not made out in view of the decision of this Court reported
as 2004 (109) DLT 915 Daya Bhatnagar Vs. State.
3. When the present appeal for discharge came up before this Court,
learned counsel for the appellant stated that he had informed about the
public witnesses to the Investigating Officer, however, he did not investigate
the same and record their statements. Thus, this Court directed the
concerned Investigating Officer to produce the case diaries. A perusal of the
case diary dated 28th November, 2016 reveals that the appellant on the said
date joined the investigation and pointed out the place where the quarrel
allegedly took place. Unscaled site plan was prepared on the pointing out of
the appellant. Thereafter, inquiry was made from the appellant about the
neighbours or the independent public witnesses who must have seen the
quarrel taking place between the complainant and accused persons on which
the appellant stated that he could not recall any such person at that time and
that he will recollect his memory and inform the police at a later stage. As
per the case diary, thereafter, the investigation staff also tried to find out
independent witnesses who had witnessed derogatory remarks being made,
however, no witness was found out.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant today states that he had informed
the Investigating Officer about the public witnesses but he did not record
their names. On a query put by this Court to learned counsel for the
appellant as to when the Investigating Officer did not record the name of the
persons who had witnessed the incident either on 28 th November, 2016 or
2nd December, 2016 when the appellant joined the investigation and
produced self attested copy of his caste certificate and his supplementary
statement was also recorded, what action he had taken and whether he had
filed a complaint in this regard, the answer of learned counsel for the
appellant is that no such complaint has been filed. Even in the present
appeal the appellant does not give the names of the persons who had
witnessed the incident bringing the offence within the ambit of public view.
5. Considering the fact that the casteist derogatory remarks were not
made in front of any other person and as there was no evidence in this
regard, the learned Special Court committed no error in discharging
respondents No.2 to 4.
6. In view of the facts noted above, no case is made out to transfer the
investigation.
7. Appeal is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2018
'rk'
