High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ram Sarup son of Sh. Ram Diya, v. 1.State of Haryana. - CRA-363-MA-2006  RD-P&H 865 (25 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.363-MA of 2006
Date of Decision: November 09, 2006
Ram Sarup son of Sh. Ram Diya, resident of House No.278, Gandhi Dham Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar
1.State of Haryana.
2.Raj Kumar son of Jai Ram resident of Village Sandhai, P.O.Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K S GAREWAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R S MADAN
PRESENT: Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
R S MADAN, J.
By this order we propose to dispose of the Criminal Misc.No.363-MA of 2006, which has arisen out of the judgment dated 16-1-2006 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri whereby he acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt.
In brief, the facts of the case are that on 23-8-1999 at about 8.15 A.M. Ram Sarup, Inspector employed in the Haryana Roadways was standing to check the buses near Village Jaroda on the route of Bilaspur, Yamuna Nagar when bus bearing No.HR-37-1061 came from Criminal Appeal No.363-MA of 2006 2
Bilaspur side and had to reach Yamuna Nagar. He stopped the bus for checking the tickets of the passengers. Most of the passengers travelling in the bus were found without tickets. The complainant asked about the tickets from the passengers, who told him that they had paid money to the Conductor for supplying the tickets but the tickets had not been issued to them. The complainant asked the conductor-accused to give the way bills but he refused to give the way bills. The accused abused the complainant in the name of sister and mother and used filthy language against the caste of the complainant. The accused, who belongs to Brahmin caste uttered the words as "Sarkar Ne Chamar Chuhre Gittal Bharti Kar Rakhe Hai. Tujhe Kisne Inspector Bana Diya Hai, Tu Meri Bus Check Nahin Kar Sakta." This incident took place at Gulab Nagar Chowk. The conductor also slapped the complainant and pushed him out of the bus forcibly and threatened to murder him in case he again dare to check his bus. Many of the passengers present there tried to intervene in the incident but in vain.
The entire incident was witnessed by the passengers and two passengers, namely, Jai Parkash of Bilaspur and Raj Kumar Clerk to Sh.JS Khurana, Advocate, who were also travelling in the same bus. The complainant made a complaint against the accused-Conductor to General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar regarding the above said incident but no legal action was taken against him. According to the complainant, the Conductor has misappropriated an amount of Rs.200/-, which he had charged from the passengers without issuing them the tickets. The complainant felt that he has been humiliated before the passengers because he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community as well as he was threatened by the accused. After having failed to get justice from the Authorities, he filed the complaint.
Criminal Appeal No.363-MA of 2006 3
On appearance of the accused before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, the accused was charged for the commission of offence under Sections 353/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sectiion 3(ii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of 6 witnesses and closed the case of the prosecution.
After the case of the prosecution was closed, the statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the entire incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and pleaded false implication. It was pleaded by the accused that the complainant used to demand monthly as illegal gratification from the Conductors and he used to speak against him in the meeting being the President of the Union.
In defence, the accused examined DW1-Puran Chand, Driver, who has stated that no occurrence took place as alleged above, DW2-Sat Parkash is a Conductor and he also stated that the complainant used to demand monthly from them and that is why he has reported the matter against the accused.
No other evidence was led in defence.
On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar did not find favour with the prosecution version and acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Criminal Appeal No.363-MA of 2006 4
The learned trial Court recorded the findings to the fact that there are discrepancies in the statements of PW4 and PW5 as PW5 appears to be an introduced witness. While highlighting the discrepancies, he has stated that Jai Parkash-PW5 was sitting on the first seat after one enters in the bus from front window side whereas Jai Parkash stated that he was sitting in the middle of the bus. The complainant, however, stated that he did not notice where PW5-Jai Parkash was sitting at that time. It is further not mentioned in the complaint that Jai Parkash while boarding the bus stated that he would appear as a witness for the complainant but PW5- Jai Parkash has stated that he did not come down to assure the complainant on this fact. It was further stated by the complainant that he was given beatings by the accused while he was being pushed out of the bus but the evidence led by the complainant disclosed that there was only exchange of hot words between the accused and the complainant while asserting Chuhra Chamar. PW5-Jai Parkash stated that after the refusal of the Conductor to deliver way bills, the Inspector-complainant tried to snatch the way bills from him so there was exchange of blows.
Another discrepancy which the Court has taken into consideration is with regard to the averments made in the complaint wherein the complainant has stated that the accused started abusing him in the name of his mother and sister and he further asserted that Haryana Government has employed Chamar, Chuhre and Githal and as to who had made him Inspector whereas in his statement before the General Manager, it was found that these words were not specifically mentioned and only Dhaed, Chamar are mentioned. The factum of abusing the complainant by the accused in the Criminal Appeal No.363-MA of 2006 5
name of mother and sister is not mentioned.
The learned trial Court did not believe the presence of Jai Parkash-PW5 at the spot and disbelieved him.
The learned trial Court while relying upon the judgment of Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 245 was of the view that the accused was not aware of the fact that the complainant belongs to Chamar caste. As no such circumstances exist, hence the complaint was quashed. Another authority relied upon by the learned trial Court is Mohammad Kutty Vs. State of Kerala 2004(2) RCR(Crl.) 660 wherein it was held that mere mention of caste is not sufficient to attract the provisions and there should be intention to humiliate, which may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The accused was not in the knowledge that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste. Another authority relied upon by the learned trial Court is Pishore Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2003(2) Recent Criminal Reports 215 wherein it was held that in order to book the accused under the provisions of Scheduled Caste Act mere saying of Kutya Chuhria was not sufficient to attract the provisions of Scheduled Caste Act. Reference may also be taken from Shayam Singh @ Dhannu and another Vs. State of M.P. 2006(2) RCR (Crl.) 107 where it was held that calling a person by his caste as Chamar does not come within ambit of offence under Section Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The plea of the defence that the accused used to demand an illegal gratification from the Conductors of the buses appears to be one of the reasons to book the accused in the present complaint. The complainant while appearing before the Magistrate stated that only 5 to 7 passengers Criminal Appeal No.363-MA of 2006 6
were without tickets whereas in the complaint he stated that there were 20 passengers, who were without tickets. In this view of the matter, the complainant has come up with an exaggerated version as debated from his original version so as to book the accused in the present case.
After giving the aforesaid reasons at the law cited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagahari, the accused was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted.
Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to pin point any infirmity in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagahari.
Accordingly, leave to appeal is declined.
( R S MADAN )
( K S GAREWAL )
November 09, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.