Ishru vs Udham Singh and Others

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Una dismissing the complaint.

The complainant had alleged before the learned trial court that the respondents herein were guilty of offences u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). The case was committed for trial before the Sessions Judge, Una in accordance with law.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant pleaded that he was a member of ''Chamar'' community which is a Scheduled Caste. Respondents No. 1 to 9 belong to the ''Rajput'' community. Respondent No. 5 was an OBC and respondents No. 6 to 9 are ''Tarkhans''. The complaint then proceeds that the complainant is old, illiterate and poor and has been earning his livelihood by doing labour work in the village. He constructed a house with the financial assistance from the State under the ''Indira Avas Vikas Yojna''. On 13.5.2006, the respondents-accused trespassed in his house with the intent to dispossess him and respondents No. 1 to 3 used derogatory and abusive terms against him by calling him "Chamar" and "Kutta". They threatened to subject the complainant to dire physical consequences. The complainant thereafter filed a report against the accused with the Police Station, Bangana and copies of the complaint were sent to the Prime Minister and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. This complaint in turn was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police for necessary action. The facts as narrated are that thereafter again on 30.6.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused in a drunken state, trespassed in the house of the complainant, roughed him up and asked him to withdraw the complaint filed by him under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the ''Act''.

On consideration of the preliminary evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded his complaint to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. Charges under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the ''Act'' were framed against the respondents. The evidence of the prosecution was in the nature of six witnesses. Ext. PW1/A was the complaint which was also brought on record.

On consideration of the entire evidence on the record, the learned trial Court holds that the evidence shows that the complainant and his witnesses were having dispute of the civil nature with Sh. Khalelu, who is the son of the sister of mother of PW-1 Ishru complainant. The complainant had admitted that Khalelu had instituted a complaint against him before the Gram Panchayat and he was charged for the encroachment of the land/court-yard of Khalelu. The Court noticed that Khalelu was disabled person having suffered permanent injury to his lower limb. Financial assistance of Rs. 15,000/- had been sanctioned/recommended by Shamsher Singh, who was the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The court holds that it is because of the encroachment which he had made on the land of the aforesaid Khalelu that he cocked up the entire story. The Court also noticed that there was no occasion for the accused to have dis-possessed the complainant from his house or the land and that the words constituting an offence under the ''Act'' were not proved and uttered by the accused.

Relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bharat Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. 2006 Cri. L.J. 4433, the Court holds that this is one case where the provisions of the ''Act'' are being misused for settling the personal scores. On a thorough scrutiny of the evidence, no offence was made out and the complaint was accordingly dismissed. The finding of fact arrived at to hold that the complaint is motivated are not perverse.

I have gone through the record of the case and I cannot find any reason to dis-agree or differ from the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court below.

I cannot accept the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the accused actually used these words to defame the complainant. The learned court has discussed the evidence in detail to hold that the use of the words has not been proved. I do not see any perversity of this finding. There is no infirmity in the finding of the learned trial Court that the complaint was filed as a matter of personal vendetta. The learned trial court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or nor has committed any illegality. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.