Naresh Kumar vs Bal Kishan and Another

Surinder Singh, J.—Leave to appeal against the acquittal passed by the learned trial Court on 26th March, 2004, was granted on 27th May, 2004, to the complainant on which date the matter was admitted for hearing.

Now the matter has been heard and reappraised the evidence on record.

Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The Appellant is the real brother of Respondent Bal Kishan and Nirmla Devi Respondent is the wife of Bal Kishan. Though, the parties to this appeal belong to one family, but Appellant claims himself to be celibate and Pujari of the local temple in village Sheel living with his handicapped brother and mother CW2 Smt. Sheela Devi, whereas the Respondents are living separately. Both the parties have a dispute over the path and a wall to which the Appellant claims himself to be his own.

It is alleged that on 30th April, 2000 the Respondents came to the temple where a prayer was going-on. They started saying that the Appellant is a hypocrite, practiced black-magic, takes liquor and is a non-vegetarian. At that time his mother (CW2) and one Balwant Singh (not examined), CW-3 Rajinder Kumar and Kamal Kant, were also there. The imputation of these allegations lowered his prestige, reputation and good-will, caused mental torture and harassment to him, as the said allegations were false and scandalous only made to harm his reputation. Hence a notice was served upon the Respondents claiming the damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and to tender unqualified written apology, lest to face its music.

The notice was not Responded to, as such a complaint u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code was filed and the preliminary evidence was led. Finding reasonable grounds to proceed against the Respondents, they were summoned and the notice of accusation was put to them to which they denied.

To prove his case, the Appellant examined himself as CW1 and also examined his mother CW2 Sheela Devi and CW3 Rajinder Kumar.

The Respondents were also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They admitted that the Appellant is a Pujari in the temple of village Sheel, but denied the allegations. According to them, the Appellant has been pressurizing them to remove the wall and this case is also the outcome of the civil litigation pending between them. However, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of trial, the Respondents were acquitted of the said offence on the ground that the allegations in question stood not proved and further that the comparative analysis of the depositions made by the complainant and his witnesses shows that the allegations were not inspiring confidence.

Appellant as CW1 stated that he felt defamed by the utterances made by the Respondents on 30th April, 2000 in the temple in the presence of his mother, Balwant Singh and CW3 Rajinder Kumar that he had been taking liquor, eggs and had been creating problems to the people. He further stated that he used to advise the people to adopt the religious path and not to eat non-vegetarian-food and be vegetarian. In cross-examination he admitted that the Respondents had been nourishing grudge against him for the last two years. They also lodged four FIRs against him. He also admitted that after the said incident on 6th December, 2000, Respondent No. 2 had also lodged a false FIR against him. Though, he stated that his relations with the Respondents prior to the alleged incident were cordial, but the perusal of his cross-examination shows that they were not pulling-on well with each other and there were civil and criminal cases pending against him. There has also been a dispute with respect to the wall to which the complainant wanted to get it removed. He also stated that at the time of the alleged incident about 4/5 persons were present.

CW2 Sheela Devi though made the same version as that of the complainant, but focused on Respondent No. 2 that she had been lodging false complaints against the Appellant, but did not say anything about Bal Kishan. She admitted in so many words in her cross-examination that after the marriage of Respondent-son Bal Kishan about 20 years back his family did not pull-on well with her. They were not in talking terms with each other, thus she separated them. She also admitted that she had not been pulling-on well with the Respondents. She also stated that the cause of the incident was probably the blockade of the path in dispute and over the water-tap.

CW3 Rajinder Kumar in addition stated that the Respondents came to the temple and started using abusive language that he was practicing black-magic and also that he was a liquor addict and a non-vegetarian. According to him, all these words were uttered by them in the presence of Balwant Singh and Sheela Devi, which also caused suspicion in his mind that the complainant was not a good-man, but ultimately he spoke to the complainant and found that he was not such type of a person. Pertinently, in cross-examination he stated that at that time the prayer was going-on and the Respondents were in the temple and he reached later at the spot, which fact appears to be contrary to the statements of CW1 and CW2 aforesaid.

On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that the Appellant and the Respondents though belonged to the same family, having close relationship as aforesaid, but were not pulling-on well with each other as they had a dispute over the water-tap and user of path and also with respect to the wall, to which the complainant wanted to remove. Even their mother CW2 Sheela Devi expressed that the said incident of that day was because of previous dispute which even if for the arguments sake assumed to be true was not made to lower his reputation in the estimation of others. The evidence on record is contradictory. Significantly, the mother of the complainant as stated supra deposed that the dispute which took place, was only with Respondent Nirmla Devi, who had uttered the aforesaid words against the Appellant. She did not make any reference with respect to Respondent Bal Kishan.

In view of above contradictory statements and also the history of previous litigation, in my considered opinion, the acquittal of the Respondents for the offence charged cannot be converted into conviction for the reasons that the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record. As such, the appeal merits dismissal and the same is dismissed.

The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case.