Basant Ram Vs. Siri Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

Surinder Singh, J.

1. The appellant had filed a private complaint No. 228/1 of 1994 against the respondents. After the full dress trial, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and under Sections 323,504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The acquittal of the respondents has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and it also erred in holding that the appellant was having inimical relations with the respondents, defence evidence was wrongly relied upon and it attached undue importance to the contradictions.

3. Leave to appeal was granted on 14.12.2001. Now the matter has been finally heard and I have gone through the evidence on record in its meticulous details.

4. The synoptical resume of the facts giving rise to the present appeal are. The complainant a Harijan (Chamar) by caste, was Headmaster in Government Primary School, Thandora. At the relevant time, respondent No. 1 Siri Ram was posted S.H.O. to Police Station, Bharari (Bilaspur). Respondent No. 3 Gian Chand was working as sweeper in the said police station.

5. The complainant and Gian Chand (respondent No. 3) both are from the same caste and belonged to the same village. They were having a boundary dispute.

6. It is alleged that Gian Chand was harassing the complainant by filing false complaints. On 19.11.2004 Gian Chand at the instant of Banshi Ram (respondent No. 2) Pradhan of the Panchayat lodged a false complaint in the Police Station, Bharari (Bilaspur) under Sections 107 & 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on 20.11.1994 respondent Siri Ram the then S.H.O. arrested him and took him to the police station. Devi Dass, one of the relatives of the complainant, on coming to know about his arrest, approached the S.D.M. Ghumarwin, moved an application for his release, which was allowed and the S.D.M. ordered to produce the complainant before him within an hour at his residence. When the order of the S.D.M. was shown to S.H.O., he started abusing in filthy language and gave beatings to the complainant. He further asked respondents No. 2 and 3 to slap him and thereafter both the Pradhan and S.H.O. started calling him 'Chamar' and 'Achhhot' and also used defamatory language against him. He was insulted and humiliated being a member of scheduled caste.

7. The preliminary evidence was recorded by the learned trial court. Respondents were summoned for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter on the basis of the facts which came in preliminary evidence, respondents No. 1 and 2 were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 whereas respondent No. 3 was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Respondents did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial. They were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also led evidence in their defence.

9. The respondents denied the circumstances which were found attendant on them. They raised the defence that the complainant and his witnesses were nourishing the grudge against respondents No. 2 and 3 because of previous litigation and according to Siri Ram (respondent No. 1) the then S.H.O. he had investigated the matter in accordance with law in view of Rapat No. 5 dated 20.11.1994.

10. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted. That is how appellant is in appeal.

11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and went through the record.

12. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the leaned counsel for the parties, I have reappraised the evidence of the parties.

13. CW-1 Basant Ram, while substantiating his allegations admitted in the cross-examination that one Sundri Devi had lodged a complaint against him under Sections 107 & 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was inquired into the Police Station with respect to the said complaint by respondent Siri Ram (S.H.O.). He further admitted that the respondent had earlier filed a complaint against him. He also admitted subsequently Surinder Kumar had also filed a complaint against him on the next day. He also admitted that a complaint was filed against him, his sons, namely Jagdeep and Kuldip. This is also not disputed that with respect to the above complaints, Siri Ram the then S.H.O. had investigated the matter. He further admitted that respondent No. 2 Banshi Ram in his capacity as 'Pradhan' had refused to issue the character certificate of his son Hardeep. He has categorically admitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 were locked in litigation with him w.e.f. the year 1990 in respect to the demarcation of the land. A case of 'abadi deh' was also instituted in the civil court, which was finally decided on 16.11.2000. He also admitted that when the police had taken him from his house to the police station, they did not abuse him throughout the way nor he was given any beating. He reached in the police station at 9.30 a.m. and the respondent did not abuse him in any manner till 3.30 p.m. when his witnesses Devi Dass and Onkar reached there. CW-2 Devi Dass is the brother-in-law of the complainant. He stated that when he came to know that the complainant was arrested, he approached the S.D.M. for his bail. The S.D.M. directed the S.H.O. concerned to produce the complainant before him within an hour and said orders were passed on the application, moved by him. He took the orders Dasti to the police station. On the way he met Onkar, who accompanied him to the police station. Both of them reached in the police station around 3.30 p.m. At that time, the complainant was locked inside. He had shown the orders of the S.D.M. to respondent No. 1 (SHO of the Police Station) in the presence of respondents No. 2 and 3. After going through the orders of the S.D.M. respondent No. 1 threw away the said orders and started abusing the complaint in filthy language. Respondents No. 2 and 3 gave two slaps each to the complainant and he was told that if he wanted to live in the village, he should live like a 'Chamar'.

14. In the cross-examination he admitted that respondent No. 3 Gian Chand had lodged a complaint in the year 1993 against him, the complainant Basant Ram and his sons. He also admitted old litigation between the complainant, Sunder Devi and Gian Chand. According to him, the complainant was released at about 5.30 a.m. on bail but no medical examination was conducted.

15. CW-3 Onkar is alleged to have accompanied Devi Dass aforesaid to the Police Station, has admitted in the cross-examination that a case was lodged against him and his wife by Smt. Burfi Devi in the Gram Panchayat and they were fined Rs. 5/-each by respondent No. 2 Pradhan Banshi Ram. He could not say as to why he had gone to the police station along with CW-2. He stated that his village is around 21/2 furlong from the Police Station. He admitted that he contested the Election of the Panchayat and faced defeat thrice. He denied that he nourished enmity against respondents No. 2 and 3 because of the Election and fine imposed by PW-2. He contradicted himself from his previous pre-charge statement wherein he deposed that he met the complainant in the bazaar when he was coming on the motor-cycle. He, then stated that hen he was going to his fields, on the way he met witness Devi Dass.

16. Neither the complainant nor his witnesses aforesaid had brought the said incident to the notice of the S.D.M. Had the above allegations been true, at least the complainant, who was an educated person, could have complained to the S.D.M. about the illegal conduct of the respondents. Thus unnatural conduct of the complainant also makes his case doubtful.

17. Contra, DW-1 Chanchal Singh M.H.C. Thana Bharari has proved the rapat No. 20 Ex.DW1/A and Rapat No. 5 Ex.DW-1/B and copy of the complaint Ex.PW1/C.

18. Thus, it is apparent from the evidence on record, that the relations between the complainant and respondents No. 2 and 3 were not cordial. There is a history of long civil litigation between them and the witnesses have also admitted this fact. The complainant and his witnesses target a motive to implicate the respondents because of their enmity, due to long dragged litigation. The respondent No. 1 Siri Ram S.H.O. happened to inquire into the complaint against the complainant, therefore their testimonies required close scrutiny in order to reach truth.

19. It is evident from the evidence discussed above that on 19.11.1994 Sundri Devi had lodged a complaint Ex.DW-1/A against the complainant and his sons and on 20.11.1994 another complaint Ex.DW-1/B was lodged by one Surinder Kumar against the complainant. Finding a case of breach of peace SI/SHO Police Station proceeded to the spot. The perusal of Kalandara Ex.DW1/C disclosed that when the police reached on the spot, sons of the complainant fled away from the spot and Basant Ram was wielding a darat in his hand threatening Sundri and Surinder Kumar with dire consequences. He was over-powered and apprehended with a great difficulty and brought to the police station as there was an apprehension of breach of peace and commission of the cognizable offence. The evidence on record reveals that there was a boundary dispute between the parties and a case No. 67/94 was also lodged on 13.11.1994 under Section 147, 148, 149, 447, 440, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant and his sons but since they were creating nuisance in the vicinity and to maintain peace, complainant Basant Ram was arrested under Sections 107 & 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at 10.30 a.m. as aforesaid. The complaint was filed against him on the same day.

20. The very presence of Onkar and Devi Dass in the police station at 3.30 p.m. on 20.11.1994 is doubtful for the reason that neither the order which is alleged to have been given dasti to Devi Dass aforesaid was produced nor any attempt was made by the complainant to prove that any application for bail was moved by the said witness, as stated above. Statement of Onkar (CW-3) is also inconsistent insofar as meeting Devi Dass in bazaar is concerned. He could not explain as to why he accompanied Devi Dass to the police station. It is also not understandable when the appellant was brought from his village to the police station and he remained there in the police station till the alleged witnesses came to the police station none of the respondents had said anything to him. Further the non-disclosure of the above allegations to the S.D.M. also renders his story doubtful. Thus, the whole story was rightly held to be un-natural and unbelievable in the aforesaid circumstances. I do not find anything worth interference in the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, as such the appeal sans merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.