Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Asra vs Hardeep Singh And Anr on 3 August, 2022
CRM-A-1461-MA of 2017 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1461-MA of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2022
Ram Asra
Applicant.
Versus
Hardeep Singh and another
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present: Mr. S. K. Bawa, Advocate for the applicant.
****
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):
This is an application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal
of the respondents in SC-308 of 2016, titled as "Ram Asra v. Hardeep
Singh and another" in a complaint under Sections 323, 341, 506 IPC and
Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The complaint was filed against Hardeep Singh and Parminder
Singh (respondents) by Ram Asra. As per the allegations, on 2.11.2014 the
complainant along with his wife were present at home, when the
respondents along with 4-5 unknown persons were abusing them. Caste
based remarks were uttered. Parminder Singh caught hold of the
complainant from the neck and Hardeep Singh slapped the complainant.
The wife of the complainant raised hue and cry, Jaswinder Kaur and others
rescued the complainant from the clutches of the respondents.
In the preliminary evidence, the applicant himself deposed,
examined his wife and Jaswinder Kaur.
1 of 3
CRM-A-1461-MA of 2017 (O&M) [2]
The respondents denied the incident.
The trial court noted that there was no specific allegation
against a particular accused for having used derogatory language against
the caste of the complainant. The allegations were general in nature that the
accused made caste based remarks. There was contradiction between the
allegations made in the complaint and the deposition of the complainant.
CW3- Jaswinder Kaur was not an eye witness to the incident. It was
revealed that she came to the spot after the wife of the complainant raised
hue and cry when the complainant was slapped. The alleged caste based
remarks were made earlier to the slapping incident. The evidence was found
to be hear-say.
As per the case set up by the applicant, he made a report to the
police about the incident but no such application was produced. Wife of the
applicant in her cross-examination stated that no complaint was made by
her or her husband to the police on or after the alleged incident. Having
failed to discharge the onus casted upon the prosecution, the respondents
were acquitted.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there were
specific allegations in the complaint with regard to the use of caste based
remarks. The respondents were aware that the complainant belonged to
SC/ST category. It is argued that as per the allegations, the applicant was
slapped and no medico-legal report was required to be produced.
The mere allegations made in the complaint in itself would not
be enough. The onus is on the prosecution to prove its case. In the present
case, the deposition of the wife of the applicant and Jaswinder Kaur was not
2 of 3
CRM-A-1461-MA of 2017 (O&M) [3]
found reliable. There is no doubt that for the allegation of slapping, medico-
legal report is not required, but it would be appropriate to note at this stage
that no evidence was produced to substantiate the allegation that the
applicant was slapped by Hardeep Singh.
No case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment,
as no legal or factual error was ever raised before the trial court.
The application is dismissed.
Since the main application for grant of leave to appeal is
dismissed on merits, the pending applications, if any, are rendered
infructuous.
[AVNEESH JHINGAN]
JUDGE
3rd August, 2022
mk
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
