Chandu Ram vs Nathu Ram and others

Surinder Singh, J.—The instant appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the complainant in a State case Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2008, decided on 21st June, 2011, whereby the respondents were acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in short "the Act" and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code arising from FIR No. 195 of 2006, registered on 20.5.2006 in Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, HP.

Record was sent for. Perused.

Heard on the point of admission.

The appellant is complainant in the State case. As per his statement (PW1) he alleged that he was ''Kabirpanthi'' (Julaha) belonging to "Scheduled Caste" community. On 19.5.2006, around 7.30 p.m., grit of the complainant was lying on the road side, i.e., National Highway, which was stored there for constructing his new house. While returning from Karyana shop to his house, he came across the heap of grit the respondents were found present there. It is alleged that they caught-hold of him from the arms and gave slaps and dragged him, while shouting "Julaha". They also did not allow him to carry the grit from the spot. He is alleged to have relieved by PW4 Chet Ram and PW9 Amar Nath from the clutches of the respondents. Later PW2 Parmod Kumar and PW3 Madan Lal also reached there. He alleged that earlier to the said incident in the month of February, 2006 the respondents had picked-up the quarrel with him which was reported to the Panchayat and it ended in compromise. Complaint Ext.PW1/A with respect to the present incident was moved to the Superintendent of Police, which culminated into the present FIR and the respondents were put on trial for the offences aforesaid and were acquitted. The State did not prefer appeal, but the complainant filed the present appeal.

Pertinently, the complainant in cross-examination admitted some glaring facts which make his case a suspect. He is a matriculate and admitted that at the behest of the respondents a complaint was lodged with respect to the illicit felling of trees against him and the forest department imposed fine of Rs. 4,000/- and that the respondents forcibly took possession of his land regarding which he had made complaint to the police. He also stated that the complaint Ext.PW1/A was drafted by Ram Saran Thakur, Pradhan of the Panchayat.

PW2 Parmod Kumar his witness also admitted that about the dispute regarding the land inter se the parties. He also admitted that while constructing his own house there was a dispute between him and the respondents. He admitted having given his statement in writing signed by him to the police which did not find the light of the day and except that no other statement was given to the police in the instant case. Pertinently, he admitted his unfriendly relations with the respondents because of on going civil litigation.

PW3 Madan Lal is a resident of 30 kilometers away from the place of alleged incident. Though, he stated that he came to meet PW9 Amar Nath, who was engaged in the masonry work, but his presence has not been stated at the spot by Amar Nath aforesaid who was allegedly engaged by Chandu Ram on his work.

PW4 Chet Ram did not support the version of the complainant, as such he was declared hostile. PW10 Kamla Devi has also turned hostile but admitted that in the complaint complainant had alleged a dispute with regard to the land with the respondents. PW11 Nikka Ram also made the similar statement.

PW5 Ram Lal is the Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. He also admitted about the earlier compromise but did not support the present case of the complainant. He admitted in cross-examination their division on the basis of political lines and according to him the respondents belong to the different party from theirs. PW6 Shukar Deen has only proved pedigree table Ext.PW6/A.

PW8 Ram Saran Thakur had endorsed the complaint to the police. He admitted that earlier compromise Ext.PW7/A was not executed in his presence.

The respondents expressed their ignorance whether the complainant belongs to "Scheduled Caste" community, in their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On having gone through the record of the case, there is not even an iota of evidence to attract the offence u/s 3(1)(X) of the Act, as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the complainant was a member of the "Scheduled Caste" community.

Section 2(1)(c) of the Act says that "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" shall have meanings assigned to them respectively under clause (24) and clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution. ''Scheduled Caste'' under clause (24) means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be "Scheduled Castes" for the purposes of this Constitution and similarly under clause (25) "Scheduled Tribes" mean as stated in Article 342 of the Constitution of India.

Under Article 341 of the Constitution, a notification is required to be issued by the Central or State Government specifying the castes, races or tribes or part of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purpose of this Constitution be deemed to be "Scheduled Castes" in relation to that State (or Union Territory, as the case may be). However, the Parliament by law include or exclude from the list of "Scheduled Castes" specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

The notification as required under the above provision of the Constitution has not been produced or proved that the complainant belongs to a caste which is declared to be a "Scheduled Caste" to attract the provisions of this Act. Hence, the charge against the accused persons under the Act is not proved at all.

Insofar as the charge qua criminal intimidation is concerned, the evidence with respect to the same is also not worth inspiring confidence in the background of acrimonious relations inter se the parties as well as the interestedness of the other independent witnesses as discussed above. Therefore, there is no ground for admission, hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.