Boota Singh vs Balwant Singh And Anr on 2 November, 2017

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 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *