Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Singh vs Dhanna Singh Etc on 22 January, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [1] 2024:PHHC:008201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004
Reserved on 08.12.2023
Date of decision: 22.01.2024
Hari Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Dhanna Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Argued by: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed by appellant against the
judgment and order dated 17.07.2004 passed by the Court of Special Judge,
Amritsar whereby the appellant and one Piara Singh were convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to
pay a fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days each, under Section
3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the Act).
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent
No.1 Dhanna Singh lodged complaint under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act and
under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against appellant Hari
Singh, Piara Singh, Manjit Singh and Kartar Singh with the Illaqa
Magistrate, wherein it was alleged that complainant belongs to Scheduled
Caste being Mazbi Sikh and his wife was sarpanch of the village at the time
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [2] 2024:PHHC:008201
of occurrence. That on 20.07.2000 at about 02:00 PM, a panchayat was
convened regarding dispute over shamlat land between appellant Hari Singh
and one Rattan Singh son of Sardul Singh and at that time Manjit Singh
stated to the complainant in a fit of anger "toon shamlat jameen daa mama
lagda hai and toon iss jhagrhe wali thaan wichon kee lena hai". On this
Manjit Singh was advised to use sober and polite language. Appellant Hari
Singh addressed to the complainant "kuta churha naahove and toon kilo kilo
daane mangda phirdan hai" and appellant Hari Singh further proclaimed
that complainant being husband of a sarpanch, consider himself to be
sarpanch of the village. In the meantime, Piara Singh addressed to the
complainant "tenoo kute churhe noon pind wich nihi rehan diange". Manjit
Singh started giving pushes to the complainant and also gave him fist blows
and in this manner accused persons intentionally insulted and humiliated the
complainant and made aspersions regarding his caste, in presence of the
panchayat. The accused being influential persons, police failed to take any
action against them.
3. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused were
summoned under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.
4. On appearance of the accused, the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions by the Court of Judicial Magistrate concerned.
5. The trial Court framed charges under Section 3 (1) (x) of the
Act and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC against appellant Hari
Singh, and Piara Singh and under Section 323 IPC against Manjit Singh and
under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC against Kartar Singh to
which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [3] 2024:PHHC:008201
6. To prove the charges, prosecution examined PW-1 Dhanna
Singh (complainant), PW-2 Jagir Singh and PW-3 Rattan Singh.
7. PW-1 while appearing in the witness box deposed regarding the
occurrence which took place on 20.07.2000 at about 02:00 PM when the
panchayat was convened to settle dispute regarding shamlat land between
Hari Singh and Rattan Singh. PW-1 stated that at that time Manjit Singh
asked him whether he is mama of the land and then Hari Singh stated to him
that he support the person who gave him wheat in kilos while Piara Singh
addressed him "kuttia churharia tinu rehan ni dena". While Manjit Singh
started pushing him and as such the accused person intentionally insulted
him by using derogatory remarks against his caste. He further deposed that
he reported the matter to the police but police failed to take any action. PW-
1 further deposed that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and at the time of
occurrence his wife was sarpanch of the village and he used to help his wife.
8. PW-2 Jagir Singh also deposed regarding the aforesaid
occurrence and further stated that at that time Manjit Singh stated to the
complainant that "toon mama lagda hai" and then Hari Singh addressed to
the complainant "kuttia chuharia toon kilo kilo dane mangda hai". Further
Piara Singh addressed to complainant "kuttia chuharia tenu pind wich nahi
rehan dena hai". Manjit Singh started giving pushes to the complainant and
the said occurrence was witnessed by him.
9. PW-3 Rattan Singh also deposed regarding the occurrence in
question and stated that Manjit Singh asked complainant "toon mama lagda
than da". While Hari Singh told complainant "toon kilo kilo dane mangda
phirda hai kuttia chuharia". Piara Singh addressed to complainant "toon
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [4] 2024:PHHC:008201
bekh le kida sarpanchi karde hai teri sarpanchi nahi hoon deni". In the
meantime, Manjit Singh started giving pushes to Dhanna Singh and that the
said occurrence was witnessed by him.
10. The prosecution closed its evidence. The accused persons were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they pleaded innocence and
false implication.
11. The accused examined DW-1 Harpal Singh of police station
Ajnala who produced summoned record relating to three different FIRs
Ex.DB, Ex.DC and Ex.DD which were registered against complainant
Dhanna Singh in police station Ajnala.
12. DW-2 Munish Kumar employee of Dr. Sohan Singh, Eye
Hospital, Amritsar produced the record of medical treatment of Kartar
Singh as per which the said patient was admitted in a Hospital on
18.07.2000 for his treatment and was discharged on 19.07.2000 and the said
record is Ex.DE.
13. Accused Hari Singh produced certified copy of complaint dated
16.04.2003 Ex.DF and certified copy of statement of Jagir Singh Mark-B
and that of Bhajan Singh Mark-C.
14. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court
acquitted Manjit Singh. However, appellant Hari Singh and Piara Singh
were convicted and sentenced as has been detailed in the opening paragraph
of this judgment.
15. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
Notice of the same was issued to the state and the complainant. As per the
office report, the complainant has died.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [5] 2024:PHHC:008201
16. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and the State counsel
and gone through the record of the learned trial Court.
17. The counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned
judgment and order has inter alia contended that the appellant was falsely
implicated in the present case and no such incident as alleged by the
complainant had ever taken place on 20.07.2000. That the complaint with
regard to alleged incident was lodged on 03.08.2000 in the Court of Illaqa
Magistrate and the delay in filing of the said complaint was not properly
explained by the prosecution/complainant. It is further submitted that there
is no independent corroboration to the testimony of the complainant who
appeared in the witness box as PW-1. The counsel for the appellant has
further contended that PW-3 Rattan Singh belongs to the opposite party as
the panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between said Rattan
Singh and the appellant, as per the allegations appearing in the complaint. It
has been further contended that presence of PW-2 Jagir Singh at the time of
alleged occurrence appears to be doubtful as he was not member panchayat
at the time of the alleged incident. The counsel for the appellant has further
argued that the complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 did
not state that the appellant used any abusive language against his caste at
the time of occurrence, as is evident from his testimony. It has been further
contended that complainant was a habitual offender and FIRs Ex.DB,
Ex.DC and Ex.DD were registered against him. It has been further
contended that in the given circumstances, the statements of PWs cannot be
believed in the absence of any independent corroboration. So prayer is made
that the impugned judgment and order be set aside.
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [6] 2024:PHHC:008201
18. The State counsel while opposing the present appeal has
supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The State
counsel has further contended that the learned trial Court rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant and other accused, as ample and reliable
evidence is available on the record to prove that at the time of occurrence
appellant and Piara Singh used abusive and derogatory language against the
complainant in the name of his caste and the said offending language was
intentionally used by them. It has been further contended that appeal filed
by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.
19. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
20. It is settled position of law that insulting or intimidating a
person belonging to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (in short SC/ST) will
not by itself amount to an offence under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim belonging to SC/ST community as has
been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5584.
21. In the present case, the prosecution has not produced or proved
scheduled caste certificate of complainant/respondent No.1 during the trial.
Further from the perusal of the testimony of complainant/respondent No.1
who appeared in the witness box as PW-1, it is evident that as per said
testimony, the appellant did not hurl any abuses to the complainant in the
name of his caste. As per said deposition, appellant simply stated to the
complainant that he is supporting the person who supplied him wheat in
kilos, while other accused persons made caste related utterances against the
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [7] 2024:PHHC:008201
complainant. No doubt, PW-2 and PW-3 while appearing in the witness box
specifically stated that the appellant also hurled abuses to the complainant
by addressing him as "kuttia chuharia", in their presence. Admittedly, PW-2
and PW-3 in their deposition nowhere stated that the
complainant/respondent No.1 belongs to scheduled caste. Further from the
perusal of testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, it cannot be made out that the
appellant used aforesaid derogatory and offensive language against the
complainant/respondent No.1 due to the reason that victim was belonging to
SC/ST community. Furthermore, PW-3 is the same person with whom the
appellant was having dispute with regard to shamlat land and the panchayat
was convened on that day to resolve said dispute. Thus, it could be easily
made out that PW-3 was having a strong motive to depose against the
appellant. From the perusal of testimony of PW-2, it is evident that he was
not member panchayat at the time when the occurrence in question had
taken place. PW-2 while appearing in the witness box stated that he also
accompanied the complainant to police station to lodge complaint regarding
incident in question and police recorded his statement. But no such
statement of PW-1 recorded by the police is available on the record. It being
so, the presence of PW-2 at the time of the occurrence seems to be doubtful.
No member of the gram panchayat was examined by the
complainant/prosecution in order to prove the case. In the given
circumstance, the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 cannot be believed in the
absence of any independent corroboration.
22. Further, the occurrence in question took place on 20.07.2000
and the complaint with regard to said incident was lodged by the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
CRA-S-1527-SB-2004 [8] 2024:PHHC:008201
complainant/respondent No.1 in the Court of Sub Divisional, Judicial
Magistrate, Ajnala on 03.08.2000. In the absence of any independent
corroboration as has been discussed above, the benefit of aforesaid delay in
lodging of the complaint, also goes in favour of the appellant.
23. In the light of the above discussion and as per the law settled in
Hitesh Verma's case (supra), the respondents have failed to prove their
case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt.
24. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment and order dated 17.04.2004 passed by the learned trial Court are
hereby set aside against the appellant and he stands acquitted. His surety
stands discharged.
25. The present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
22.01.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008201
8 of 8
