[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Udaiveer Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 January, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                 Judgment Reserved on: 21.01.2026
                                                            Judgment pronounced on: 27.01.2026

                          +      CRL.A. 448/2016
                                 UDAIVEER SINGH                                   .....Appellant
                                                   Through:      Mr. F.K. Jha, Mr. Gaurav Jha, Ms.
                                                                 Shalini Jha and Mr. Aaryamaan
                                                                 Singh, Advocates

                                                   versus

                                 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                               .....Respondent
                                              Through:           Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
                                                                 with Inspector O.P. Vishnoi

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                                   JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, (the CrPC) has been filed by the sole accused in

Sessions Case No. 06/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions

Judge-02, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi challenging the

judgment dated 12.04.2016 and the order on sentence dated

19.04.2016 as per which the appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the SC

& ST Act).

2. The prosecution case, as revealed from the charge-

sheet/final report is that the accused, a senior officer of PW2,

belonging to an upper caste, repeatedly abused the latter by

making caste based derogatory remarks with the intent to humiliate

him within public view. During the said time, PW2 was working in

the Malaria and Dengue Department, Municipal Corporation of

Delhi and was posted in Ward number 134 in Najafgarh Zone,

South West Delhi. Hence, the accused was alleged to have

committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC

& ST Act.

3. Based on Ext. PW2/A complaint of PW2, dated

22.10.2013, given to the National Commission for Scheduled

Castes, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, as per order dated

24.03.2014 of the DCP, crime number 251/2014, Najafgarh Police

Station, that is, exhibit PW6/A FIR was registered by PW12,

Assistant Commission of Police. PW12 conducted the

investigation to the crime and on completion of the same,

submitted the charge sheet/final report on 19.05.2014, alleging the

commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned

section before the jurisdictional magistrate.

4. On appearance of the accused before the jurisdictional

magistrate pursuant to receipt of summons, copies of all the

prosecution reports were furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, in compliance of Section 209 CrPC,

the case was committed to the Court of Session concerned.

5. When the accused appeared before the trial court, as per

order dated 10.07.2014, a charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC

& ST Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, to

which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined

and Exts. PW1/A-B, PW2/A, Mark P2/1-5, Mark P2/B, Mark D1,

Mark D2, PW3/A, PW4/D1-D4, PW5/DA, PW6/A-B, Mark X,

Mark Y, PW10/1, Mark A, Mark B and PW12/A-E were marked

in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused

was questioned under Section 313 CrPC, regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

of the prosecution. The accused denied all those incriminating

circumstances and maintained his innocence. He submitted that he

has been falsely implicated in the case as he had given memos and

circulars to PW2 and to the other witnesses as they were not

performing their duties properly. He submitted that though

06.10.2013 was a Sunday, all the employees had been directed to

work as the outbreak of Dengue and Malaria was at its peak.

PW4, Union leader along with PW2 and other witnesses,

contractual workers, deliberately avoided work as they thought

that if the situation worsened, they would get permanent

employment. Further, no complaint regarding the alleged abuse

was made either to the police or to the department before Ext.

PW2/A complaint was given, as PW2 and his associates were quite

aware and conscious that had they given such a complaint, their lie

would be exposed. He further submitted that he never used to

conduct field meetings but used to carry out only random checks

and that all meetings, instructions and reports were taken in his

office after 4:00 P.M.

8. After questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC,

compliance with Section 232 CrPC was mandatory. In the case on

hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC is seen

done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said

provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless

omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in

serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs.

State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89: 2009 SCC OnLine Ker

2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of

Section 232 Cr.PC has caused any prejudice to him.

9. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined and Exts.

DW1/A and DW1/B were marked.

10. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the

impugned judgment dated 12.04.2016, held the accused guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act

and hence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 02 years along with fine of ₹30,000/-and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The benefit under

Section 428 Cr. PC has been granted. Aggrieved, the accused has

preferred the present appeal.

11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused that Ext. PW2/A complaint was filed by PW2 as

an afterthought and in order to shield himself from disciplinary

action including possible termination, as the appellant had issued a

memo dated 08.10.2013 to the latter and his associates for non-

performance of duties. The complaint was instituted with an

ulterior intention to wreak vengeance upon the appellant, as

disciplinary proceedings had been initiated by the accused against

PW2 for dereliction of duty. It was further submitted that there is

an unexplained delay of about 7 to 8 months in giving the

complaint. The complaint does not speak about the date, time or

place at which the offence was committed or that it was done in

public view. It was also submitted that PW4 to PW10 are

interested witnesses, as they are associates of PW1 and they also

had a grudge against the appellant/accused as the latter had issued

memos to them also for dereliction of duty.

12. Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the impugned

judgment calling for an interference by this Court.

13. Heard both sides.

14. The only point that arises for consideration in the present

appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment

calling for an interference by this Court.

15. It is true as pointed out by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that PW2 as well as PW4, PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW9

stand by the prosecution case while they were examined before the

Court. The important question is, can their testimony be relied on

to find the accused guilty of the offence charged against him and

whether their testimony is trustworthy?

16. Before I refer to the complaint, I refer to Section 3(1)(x)

as it then stood:

"(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

......................

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

.........................

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years with fine. "

(Emphasis Supplied)

17. PW2/A complaint dated 22.10.2013 given by PW2

alleging the abuse, based on which the crime was registered,

reads:-

" ीमान जा, म जगबीर िसंह सुपु ग य ताराच मले रयों डगू िवभाग म वाड नं0.134 ए नजफगढ़ जोन दि णी िद ी नगर िनगम म कायरत ँ । साहब जी म अनुसूिचत जाित से - बा की समाज से स रखता ँ । साहब जी मेरा ऐ०. एम०. आई०. उदयवीर जी कहते है िक म उ जाित का वा बली ँ िपछले 8-9 महीने से मुझे जाित सूचक श ों (चूहड़ा, चमार, ढे ड़, कमीन) व ब त ग ी उपमाओं व गािलयाँ दे कर ल त करते है । उ ोने सभी सीमाऐ पार कर दी है । तं ग आकर मने इसकी िशकायत अपने मु अिधकारी डी०. एच०. ओ०. साहब डा० िमतल (एस०. डी०. एम०, सी०.) व डी०.सी०. (एस०. डी०. एम०. सी०.) नजफगढ़ को भी कर चूके है । उदयवीर जी हम दादागीरी धमिकयों दे ते है और तु नौकरी से टिमनट कराकर छोडूगां और ाथना प उठाने का अ िधक दबाव बना रहा है । म ब त डरा आ ँ म आपकी सरण म आया ँ तु झे इस अ ाचारीक ऐ०. एम०.आई०. से बचाया जाये। म आपके आगे ाय की गुहार लगा रहा ँ । इसके उपर स से स कानूनी कायवाही तु र की जाये। आपकी अित कृया होगी।"

18. As is clear from a reading of the complaint, the date, time

or the place at which the abuse is alleged to have taken place has

not been mentioned anywhere. The complaint also does not reveal

the fact that the abuse was done within public view. It is true that

at the bottom of PW2/A complaint, names of a few persons are

stated as witnesses. However, the complaint does not say that any

member of the public or the persons whose names figure at the

bottom were present or had seen or heard the appellant/ accused

abusing PW2 or that the abuse was done in public view. Intention

to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of the

schedule caste and schedule tribe community must be in any place

within public view. To be a place within 'public view', as referred

to in the Section, the place should be open where members of the

public can witness or hear the utterances made by the accused to

the victim. If it is done in a place where members of the public are

not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place

within public view as contemplated under the Section. (See

Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Dy.SP, Lal Gudi

Trichi 2025 KHC 6089 : AIR 2025 SC 705; Deepak Kumar

Tala v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 KHC 7219 : 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 638 and Hutu Ansari @ Hutu Ansar v. State of

Jharkhand 2025 KHC 7246 : AIR 2025 SC 2465). However,

Ext. PW2/A complaint is silent about the place and it also does not

say that the abuse took place in public view. Therefore the

testimony of PW2 and the other prosecution witnesses can only be

taken as an improvement of the original complaint.

19. Further, there is a delay about 08 months or so in giving

the complaint which has also not been properly explained. It is

true that mere delay in giving a complaint is no ground to reject

the prosecution case. However, in the case on hand, there are other

circumstances also which raise doubts regarding the prosecution

case and hence, the delay in giving the complaint is also a vital

factor in this case.

20. The specific defence taken by the appellant/accused is

that the complaint had been given only because he had issued

memo to PW2 as well as the other prosecution witnesses for

dereliction of duty. As per Ext. PW4/D3 memo, PW2 and his

associates were asked to work by the appellant/ accused even on a

Sunday. Despite the direction PW2 and others did not report for

duty and therefore, the appellant/accused is alleged to have issued

a memo against PW2 and others. The fact that a memo had been

issued by the accused is admitted by PW2 in his cross

examination. The relevant portion of his cross examination reads

thus: -

"...............It is correct that accused had issued a memo to me prior to 6.9.2013. I do not know whether other persons who are named by me above were also given memos for not working properly. It is correct that the said memo was issued to me for not working properly and for not properly breeding of mosquitoes. It is correct that I am not a permanent employee of MCD and I am on contract basis. It is wrong to suggest that I did not work properly and accused used to make me understand or that I have lodged a false complaint against the accused in order to avoid termination of my services. I do not remember whether the accused had given me memo on 8.10.2013 and has also issued a circular warning thereby that my contract could be terminated if I do not work properly. It is correct that circular dated 8.10.2013 bears my signatures at point X and same is mark D1 and the copy of memo dated

8.10.2013 is mark D2 bearing my signatures at point A. It is wrong to suggest that to escape from duties I have lodged a false complaint directly to SCST commission.........................."

(Emphasis Supplied)

21. The memo marked D dated 08.10.2013 issued reads-

"Memo By order of DHO N.G. Zone. All the staff include DBC(Staff) will do their dirty on every Sunday till further order. Due to epidemic (panic condition) of Dengue cases you will do work on Sunday Strictly. But except Narender all D.B.C were absent on 6/X/13 without information. It Shows that you are not interested in the work of DBC and interrupted troubled the M.C.D. work. Reply of this memo within 2 days. If you are failed to reply this case will be sent to Higher authority for taking disciplinary action.

                                 Copy to                         They refused to give Reply but
                                 1. Kailash                      orally accepted their mistake.
                                 2. Lokesh
                                 3. Bijender
                                 4. Surender
                                 5. Sombir
                                 6. Jagbir
                                 7. Basant
                                 8. Krishna
                                 9. D.H.O., N.G. Zone







                                  10. O/C. ................"


                                 "................
                                                                                    DT. 8/10/13
                                                             Circular

सभी D.B.C को आदे श िदया जाता है िक वो सुबह अपने अपने े म काय करने जायेगे और दोपहर 1.00 pm पर circle पर वािपस आकर दोबारा 2.00 pm circle/Incharge े म काम करने जायग । और शाम 4.00 PM पर Circle पर आकर अपनी अपनी Summary Report दगे. दोपहर बाद के काम के ह ा र ... दीवारों पर Time भी िलखगे I