Taro Devi v. The State of Haryana & Anr.

Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Sessions Case No. 1/2001, arising out of complainant under Sections 354 read with Section 509 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). By the said judgment, Karnail Singh-respondent No.2, was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Taro Devi R/o Panjokhra, CRR No. 2069 of 2002 -2- is Balmiki by caste and is a sweeper. Karnail Singh, accused/respondent No.2 is also resident of village Panjokhra. On

17.6.1997 at about 7.00 a.m. petitioner was going to the residence of one Chotte Ram for doing cleaning etc. She was present near the shop of Baldev Singh, then she was caught-hold by Karnail Singh– respondent No.2 from her right arm. Respondent tried to outrage her modesty. She was forced to have photograph with him and visit the shop of a photographer. Harbans Singh, came at the spot and saved her from the clutches of the respondent. Petitioner felt insulted and humiliated, approached the police station but respondent was found present there because his wife was the Sarpanch. No action was taken by the police, rather threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. On 18.6.1997 at 2.00 p.m. petitioner was going towards her house. Respondent came on a cycle and the same was struck against her, when she was present near the house of Ajmer Singh. Respondent started abusing the petitioner and used derogatory language. Petitioner was caught-hold from her breasts. Petitioner raised raula which attracted Chand Singh, who saved her from the respondent. After preliminary evidence respondent was summoned to face trial under Section 354 read with Section 509 IPC and Section 3 of the Act. After recording pre-charge evidence, trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out under Section 354 IPC and Section 3 of the Act. Petitioner appeared as her own witness and reiterated her CRR No. 2069 of 2002 -3- stand as per private complaint presented in the Court. PW-1 Chand Singh, had supported the version of the petitioner by saying that in his presence respondent had used derogatory language and tried to outrage the modesty of the petitioner. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the allegations of the complainant and pleaded to be innocent. Defence, version of respondent No.2 – Karnail Singh, was that complaint Ex. D-1 was received from Smt. Gurvinder Kaur, Sarpanch of village Panjokhra. Complaint was against the petitioner. There was compromise Ex. D-2. Inspector Hari Singh stated that on receipt of the complaint made by Taro Devi against Karnail Singh, report Ex. D-3 was submitted. Report Ex. D-4 is dated 5.5.1998. Gurvinder Kaur, Sarpanch of the village also appeared in defence and stated that complaint made by Taro Devi was false and fabricated simply to humiliate them. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, respondent No.2 – Karnail Singh, was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2, and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is Balmiki by caste. Respondent is the husband of Sarpanch Gurvinder Kaur. Petitioner used to work in different houses to clean utensils etc. CRR No. 2069 of 2002 -4- Firstly on 17.6.1997, petitioner was present near the shop of Baldev Singh when respondent came and attempted to outrage her modesty. Occurrence was witnessed by Harbans Singh. When matter was reported to the police then respondent was found present in the police station. No action was taken by the police. Petitioner felt offended and insulted. On 18.6.1997, at 2.00 p.m. petitioner was near the house of Ajmer Singh and then again respondent came and had struck his cycle against her. Respondent had tried to outrage the modesty of the petitioner but evidence on file was not rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Complaint was dismissed simply on the ground that there is delay and as per report of the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. complaint is false. Approach of the trial Court is not correct one. Evidence on file was misread. When the judgment is perverse then the Revisional Court has the power to interfere. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that first occurrence was on 17.6.1997 at 7.00 a.m. witnessed by Harbans Singh but he was not examined for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Second occurrence is dated 18.6.1997 at 2.00 p.m. Occurrence was witnessed by Chand Singh but Chand Singh had a dispute with the respondent. Statement of Chand Singh was rightly ignored. No explanation regarding delay. In fact respondent No.2 is the husband of the Sarpanch and there was a party faction in the village. Harbans Singh and Chand Singh were inimical towards the respondent. On their instance present complaint was filed by the petitioner. Undisputedly, petitioner is Balmiki by caste but the question is whether respondent used derogatory language and tried to outrage CRR No. 2069 of 2002 -5- her modesty. First occurrence is dated 17.6.1997 and second is dated

18.6.1997, whereas complaint was instituted on 24.7.1997. Complaint was sent to Police Station Panjokhra, for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and report of the police is against the petitioner. In case report of the police is ignored even then story is not genuine one. First occurrence is dated 17.6.1997 at about 7.00 a.m. witnessed by Harbans Singh but he was not examined for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared in Court in preliminary evidence on

10.7.2001 and after charge on 5.6.2002. According to the petitioner complaint in writing was given to the police but no action. Copy of the complaint not produced. In case petitioner had given written complaint to the police qua the present occurrence then original should have been summoned. If the petitioner was not in a position to summon the original complaint then copy of the same should be produced as to whether the allegations in the written complaint are the same or not. Petitioner in her statement dated 20.4.1999, stated that she alongwith the co-villagers had contacted the police. Complaint in writing was given to the police but when appeared in Court on 10.7.2001, then denied the above said fact. Complainant in writing was sent to the police station for report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala. ASI Baljit Singh, had investigated the matter. He had recorded the statement of Taro Devi – petitioner and others. From the statement of petitioner one thing is clear that earlier she was CRR No. 2069 of 2002 -6- working as sweeper in the house of the respondent and later on she started working in the house of Harbans Singh. Wife of the respondent No.2 had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch. Harbans Singh, had opposed the wife of the respondent. Wife of the respondent had won the election. That means Harbans Singh was not having cordial relations with the respondent. Statements of Chand Singh and Harbans Singh were recorded but they did not support the petitioner. As discussed earlier, first occurrence was near the shop of Baldev Singh witnessed by Harbans Singh, but Baldev Singh was not examined to state as to whether there was any occurrence dated

17.6.1997 at 7.00 a.m. in front of his shop. Chand Singh, is the eye-witness of the second occurrence dated 18.6.1997 at 2.00 p.m. From the cross-examination of Chand Singh, one thing is clear that wife of respondent No.2 had initiated security proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. against Chand Singh, his brother Jagjit Singh and one Surjit Singh. Ranjit Singh brother of the respondent was the witness. Wife of respondent filed complaint against Charan Singh brother of Chand Singh. Complaint Ex. D-1 was against the petitioner at the instance of wife of the respondent. Balkar Singh, was also one of the accused with whom petitioner was working as a domestic helper. Ultimately, there was a settlement. Compromise Ex. D-2 was scribed on 18.6.1997, thumb marked by the petitioner and her husband. Meeting continued from

10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. whereas occurrence as per the petitioner was at

2.00 p.m. When the petitioner with her husband while present in the meeting had attested the compromise and the meeting had continued CRR No. 2069 of 2002 -7- from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. then story regarding occurrence at 2.00 p.m. seems to be not correct one. If at 2.00 p.m. respondent had used derogatory language and attempted to outrage the modesty of the petitioner then while thumb marking the compromise Ex. D-2, petitioner could easily refuse to thumb mark the compromise by saying that at

2.00 p.m. she was caught hold by the respondent and the respondent had attempted to outrage her modesty. Chand Singh, had witnessed the second occurrence dated

18.6.1997, at 2.00 p.m. but statement of Chand Singh, inspires no confidence because he was inimical towards the respondent. Chand Singh was present in his 'bara' which was admittedly at some distance. Chand Singh, came at the spot after the alleged occurrence had taken place. Petitioner in her statement dated 5.6.2002, stated that respondent had not tried to outrage her modesty then statement of Chand Singh is without any evidentiary value. From the evidence available on file, one thing is clear that wife of the respondent was a Sarpanch. Harbans Singh at the time of election had opposed the wife of respondent. Sarpanch had initiated security proceedings against Chand Singh and his brother. After leaving the house of respondent, petitioner started serving at the house of alleged eye-witness. So possibility of private complaint at the instance of Harbans Singh and Chand Singh cannot be ruled out. When there are two versions then version favourable to the accused is to be accepted. As per evidence on the file possible view was taken by the trial Court. Judgment of acquittal is to be set aside when the judgment is perverse and evidence was misread. Lightly CRR No. 2069 of 2002 -8- judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside simply on the ground that appellate Court intends to take different view. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition without merits is dismissed. December 08, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE