CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM)
Date of decision :02.11.2017
Boota Singh
…… Petitioner
Versus
Balwant Singh and another
…… Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
***
Present : Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate
for the applicant.
***
H.S. MADAAN, J.
Complainant – Boota Singh had filed a complaint under
Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Sections 323, 342, 504, 506/34 IPC against
accused Satinder Singh, Balwant Singh and Surjit Singh.
The accused had been summoned and they put in appearance,
formal charge for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 read
with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
Briefly stated facts of the case as per version of complainant –
1 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:17 :::
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:2:-
Boota Singh are that he is an Ex-serviceman belonging to Scheduled Caste
community; that he had contested elections for Sarpanch of village Gram
Panchayat which was held on 29.06.2003, however, he lost that election and
other candidate Piara Singh son of Babu Singh emerged victorious; that
accused Satinder Singh, Balwant Singh and Surjit Singh were the supporters
of Piara Singh in that Panchayat elections, they had pressurized the
complainant to withdraw his nomination papers in favour of Piara Singh,
but complainant did not agree, as such they nursed a grudge against him and
was on a look out to teach a lesson to the complainant; that accused Satinder
Singh was involved in FIR No.40 of 2004 for an offence under Section 406
IPC pertaining to impersonation / embezzlement of Panchayat funds; that
FIR was registered at the instance of complainant and other persons of the
village Bhanour, as such Satinder Singh become inimical towards the
complainant; that Balwant Singh and Surjit Singh are the fast friends of
Satinder Singh; that land filling job was going on in the Government Senior
Secondary School Bhanour undertaken by Satinder Singh, PTA President of
the school, the sand lifted from village ‘Sham lat’ during day time was put to
use in the school, however land lifted in the evening and night was sold by
Satinder Singh; that on 20.08.2005 at about 9:00 p.m. when Satinder Singh
and his accomplice namely Balwant Singh and Surjit Singh were taking
away the sand in three trollies then they were stopped from doing so by one
Jagdev Singh son of Mohinder Singh, heated exchange of words took place,
in the meanwhile complainant reached at the spot and after listening to both
the parties, he tried to persuade Satinder Singh and others not to indulge in
such illegal activities but they started abusing him by calling him ‘Chura
Chamar Kutta’ etc. when the complainant objected to that, then such
2 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:18 :::
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:3:-
persons started beating him severely; that Surjit Singh gave Lathi blows to
the complainant whereas remaining accused namely Balwant Singh and
Satinder Singh gave kick blows and pushed away the complainant,
thereafter Janak Singh, Harminder Singh and Gurdeep Singh Lalli came to
the spot and they took the complainant to Police Station Dakha where the
complainant had reported the matter to the police, thereafter he was taken to
Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was medically examined, however,
police of Police Station Dakha did not take any action against the accused
person, then the complainant moved a complaint before DSP Dakha on
10.09.2005 who called both the parties to his office but the accused did not
put in appearance. Then on 13.09.2005 the complainant lodged complaint
with S.S.P. Jagraon, which was forwarded to DSP Dakha, such DSP called
both the parties. The accused accepted the fact of the complainant being
beaten up and abused and contemporaneously called ‘Chura Chamar Kutta’
etc. DSP Mullanpur Dakha recorded statement of both the parties, but no
action was taken.
After framing of formal charge the case was fixed for evidence
of complainant / prosecution, during the course of which complainant –
Boota Singh appeared as PW-1, besides, examined Jadgev Singh as PW-2.
With that the evidence of prosecution / complainant was closed.
Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded, in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against
them were put to them but they denied the same and pleaded their innocence
and false involvement in this case. They further pleaded that there was
committee in their village for the welfare and development of the village;
that all the committee members wanted to start sand filling work in the Sr.
3 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:18 :::
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:4:-
Secondary school of their village; that then P.T.A. Committee in
consultation with other committee members gave this work of sand filling to
Sidhu Transport Co. and Sidhu Transport Co. provided three tractor trollies
for sand filling on 18/19/ 20.8.2005 at the rate of `110/- per trolley and it
was also finalized in the contract with Sidhu Transport Co. that after the
work on every day these tractor trollies will take one trolley sand each in
return of the work. So on 18/19.8.2005 they had taken the sand as per the
commitment. But on 20.8.2005 after completion of work when these tractor
trolley were taking sand in the trolley then Boota Singh (complainant)
stopped them at 9 PM, then the people of tractor trolley called the members
of the committee. They all reached at the spot along with member Panchyat
and other respectable. Then they asked Boota Singh not to stop the trolley
but when he refused then Panchayat member called SHO Prem Singh, at the
spot. SHO Prem Singh, after verifying the facts from all the
members,directed Boota Singh to get away from Tractor trolley and allowed
the tractor trolley to move on. Thereafter all the members along with SHO
left the spot. No body spoke any defamatory word to Boota Singh and
nobody gave beating to him. Boota Singh always create hindrance in the
development of the village. Thereafter this false case was planted upon
them.
During their defence evidence accused examined Amritpal
Singh as DW-1 and Dalbara Singh as DW-2, who supported the defence
version.
Trial Court had formulated following points for determination:-
i. Whether the on 20.08.2005 in the area of village
4 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:18 :::
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:5:-
Bhanohar accused Satinder Singh (since deceased) along with
Balwant Singh and Surjit Singh intentionally insulted and
intimidated Boota Singh – complainant with an intent to
humiliate him being a member of Scheduled Caste, in a place
within public view and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
ii. Secondly on the said date, time and place accused
Satinder Singh (since deceased) along with Balwant Singh and
Surjit Singh caused simple injuries to said Boota Singh in
furtherance of their common intention?
After hearing the arguments, the trial Court acquitted the
accused of the charge framed against them, the reasons given in the
judgment are as follows:-
“Though complainant – Boota Singh while appearing in
the witness box as PW-1 has reiterated the version given in the
complaint. But he has concealed the most material facts with
regard to presence of police officials as well as SHO Prem
Singh at the spot However during cross-examination the
complainant Boota Singh has admitted that earlier Police had
come at the spot. He further admitted that SHO Prem Singh
was also called at the spot. Thus from the earlier statement of
complainant recorded before the Police Police Ex.D1 as well
as during the cross-examination of the complainant this fact
has become crystal clear that matter was resolved at the spot
5 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:18 :::
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:6:-with the intervention of the SHO Prem Singh and he disbursed
all the parties from there. But while filing this complaint the
complainant did not make any reference with regard to
reaching of Police at the spot. Thus non-mentioning of this
material fact regarding releasing of tractor-trolley from the
spot with the intervention of SHO Prem Singh creates doubt
regarding genuineness of version of the complainant. Since the
complainant Boota Singh has admitted presence of Police
officials as well as SHO Prem Singh at the spot, therefore, it is
not believable that accused would have dared to utter any
defamatory or derogatory words against the complainant or
would have caused any injury to the complainant in the
presence of Police officials. Even if it is assumed for the sake
of arguments that beatings were given to the complainant and
defamatory or derogatory words were also uttered to the
complainant before arrival of Police, then the complainant
would have definitely reported the matter to the Police. But
record is quite barren in this regard. Therefore, testimony of
PW-1 Boota Singh does not inspire any confidence.
Though PW-2 Jagdev Singh has tried to support the
version of the complainant but even this witness appears to be
interested witness as he has admitted during his cross-
examination that FIR has been registered against his real
brother Kulwant Singh at the instance of one of the accused
namely Satwinder Singh. Under these circumstances
6 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:18 :::
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:7:-possibility of false deposition of this witness on account of
grudge against the accused cannot be ruled out. Moreover as
per the complainant Boota Singh himself it was Jagdev Singh
who actually stopped the accused party from taking sand in the
trolley. Thus it does not appeal to reason that accused party
did not cause any harm to Jagdev Singh rather cause injuries
as well as used derogatory language against the complainant
Boota Singh who came afterward. Still the complainant has
mentioned the names of so many persons who gathered but
none of the independent witness has been examined by the
complainant to lend corroboration.”
The other reasons given by the trial Court are as follows:-
i. Joint statement of members of committee of village
Bhanaur before police Ex.DAA corroborating stand of the
accused.
ii. Report of DSP Ex.D2 coming to the conclusion that there
is no truth in the complaint filed by the complainant and
complaint be filed.
iii. It being not proved that accused had knowledge that
complainant is member of Scheduled castes accordingly
question of intention to insult or intimidate the victim as
member of Scheduled Caste not arising.
iv. There being nothing on record to show that complainant
had suffered any injury and no doctor had come forward to
prove that injuries had in fact been detected on person of
7 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:18 :::
CRM-A-1963-MA-2015 (OM) -:8:-complainant.
v. Gross delay in filing of the complaint inasmuch as the
incident is said to have been taken place on 20.08.2005
whereas complaint was filed in the Court on 26.11.2005 that
after expiry of more than three months without there being any
cogent or convincing explanation for the same.
Feeling aggrieved the complainant has approached this Court
seeking special leave to appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the complainant and I find that
no ground is made out to grant the relief prayed for. The judgment passed
by the trial Court is well reasoned one based upon proper appraisal and
proper appreciation of the evidence and correct interpretation of law. There
is no illegality or infirmity which might have called for interference by this
Court by granting leave to appeal and exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Furthermore the application has been filed belatedly by 15 days and no
justifiable reason for the delay could be explained in the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the complainant for condonation
of delay, therefore, the application under reference stands dismissed.
( H.S. MADAAN )
02.11.2017 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
1. Whether reportable? No
2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes
8 of 8
07-11-2017 00:24:18 :::