Criminal Misc. No.311-MA of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.311-MA of 2008
Date of decision : 25.9.2008
Daljit Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Ranjodh Singh ...Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Sumit Jain,Advocate for the petitioner.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint under Section 3
(X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 323 IPC against the
respondents/accused which was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge.
The respondents/accused, who are Jats by caste, obtained
the service of petitioner/complainant for construction of a pucca well. A
sum of Rs.5000/- was due from the respondent/accused towards the
petitioner/complainant which he demanded a number of times but the
respondent/accused did not pay up. On 5.1.2004, the
respondents/accused were available at Bus Stand, Talwandi and were
engaged in a conversation with Tarsem Singh, Gora Singh, Vir Chand,
Sarpanch, Jagraj Singh and certain other persons. The
petitioner/complainant happened to come to that side. He demanded his
dues from the respondent/accused who got infuriated and held out a threat
that they would teach a lesson to him. They further addressed the
Criminal Misc. No.311-MA of 2008 -2-
****
complainant in derogatory term “SALA KUTA CHURA”. Besides giving him
slaps and fist blows respondent/accused also uttered the following
dialogue “SALA KUTA CHURA BAHUT SIRE CHARYA HAI ISNU PAISE
DEN DA MAJA DINDE HAN”.
On perusal of the preliminary evidence, the respondent/accused
were summoned vide order dated 29.11.2004 to face a trial under Section
3 of the Act and 323 IPC. However, on appraisal of the pre-charge
evidence, learned Trial Judge ordered the dismissal of the complaint.
Learned Trial Judge noticed that out of four named persons
who were available at the relevant point of time, only PW-2 Vir Chand had
been examined by the complainant/petitioner at the trial. While Tarsem
Singh was given up as unnecessary and Jagraj Singh was given up by
having been won over by the respondent/accused. Gora Singh was
reportedly dead. Learned Trial Judge noticed that Vir Chand is under a
debt to the petitioner/complainant because the former had been proved to
have been cited as a prosecution witness in a complaint filed by Vir Chand
against Malkiat Singh and others. It was also noticed that Vir Chand had
also appeared as a witness against the respondent/accused in case FIR
No. 103 dated 15.8.2003. In support of that finding, learned Trial court
drew sustenance from Ex. D1, Ex. D2 and Ex. D3. Ex. D1 is a copy of
complaint which Vir Chand had instituted against Malkiat Singh and others.
Ex. D2 is the list of witnesses wherein name of petitioner/complainant finds
mention; while Ex. D3 is the photocopy of the statement which Vir Chand
had made in that complaint. Further, Ex. D4 is certified copy of the
statement made by PW-2 Vir Chand in case FIR No. 103 dated 15.8.2003
wherein Ranjot Singh respondent/accused had been arrayed as an
accused. Even otherwise, Vir Chand conceded (in course of cross
Criminal Misc. No.311-MA of 2008 -3-
****
examination in the present case) that he is not on speaking terms with the
respondents/accused.
It would be apparent from a perusal thereof that the learned
Trial Judge was fully justified in declining to place reliance on self-serving
statement of the petitioner-complainant, particularly when the only witness
examined by him had been proved to be favourably inclined towards the
complainant and inimically inclined towards the respondents/accused.
Dismissed.
September 25, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No