Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

Present: Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Complainant Chhatarpal filed a complaint under Sections 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act for short) and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent. Vide impugned judgment dated 6.10.2009, learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against her. The complainant has filed this application under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, reads thus:- “The facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant belongs to Sikh Majhbi caste and the CRM-A No. 687-MA of 2009 (O&M) 2 accused knows about his caste. He is working as Ziledar in Punjab State Tubewell corporation having addl. charge and is posted at Malout. The accused is a quarrel some lady and used to harass the complainant. There is common wall of the houses of the complainant and the accused but the accused was not bearing expenses of the common wall and the matter was referred to the Pachayat and on 21.3.04, the accused paid expenses of the wall but she started harassing the complainant. On

25.7.04, the complainant has present at his house due to holiday being Sunday. Ranjha Ram was also present there due to some domestic work. At about 8 A.M. wife of the complainant was cleaning front of his house and the accused came out in the street and his neighbourers Santokh Singh, Balwant Singh and Darshan Singh were also standing there. The accused started calling him 'kutta chuhra, mazhbi and started abusing him and threatened that she will not allow the Mazhbis to live in her neighbourhood. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. Hence was the instant complaint.” Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against her. CRM-A No. 687-MA of 2009 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial Court in para Nos. 11 and 12 of its judgment has held as under:- “11. The perusal of the file shows that P.W.1 Chhatar Pal has admitted that there was a dispute between the parties regarding wall and a Panchayat was convened on 21.3.2004 for settling the dispute of the wall for payment of costs of the common wall. But P.W. 2 Santokh Singh and P.W.3 Ranjha Ram have stated that if there was any dispute regarding the wall. But compromise Ex.PB also shows that there was a dispute between the parties regarding common wall. The perusal of the complaint Ex.PA filed by the complainant shows that he has mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint that on

25.7.04 accused abused his wife when she was cleaning the street in front of their house. Hence, the wife of the complainant was the best witness to prove the genuineness of the occurrence,but she has not been examined by the complainant/prosecution for the reason best known to him, which means that the complainant has with held the best evidence and an adverse inference is drawn against him.

12. In view of the above facts, circumstances CRM-A No. 687-MA of 2009 (O&M) 4 and discussion on merit, it is concluded that there was a dispute between the parties regarding common wall and also previous litigation, which is fully brought on the file and as such the false implication of the accused in this case due to the said wall dispute cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the alleged occurrence took place in front of the house of the complainant which is not a public place in public view. So, it cannot be said that the accused abused the complainant and used objectionable words against his caste at public place in full public view. Hence, the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her. So, the file be consigned to the record room.” Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the CRM-A No. 687-MA of 2009 (O&M) 5 judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis- reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” The reasons given by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against her are good reasons and call for no interference. The complainant had failed to examine his wife who had been abused by the respondent while she was cleaning the street in front of their house. Moreover, there was a dispute between the parties regarding the common wall and there was previous litigation between the parties. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the possibility that the respondent has been falsely involved in this case could not be ruled out. Learned counsel has failed to show any mis-reading of evidence on record. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 05, 2010