Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Kusum Lata - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.A. 686/2012
Decided On : 03-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey and Mr Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. Mr K.S. Goswami, Adv. for R2 and 3
The judgment emphasizes the need for stringent proof in cases involving grave offences under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the requirement of independent and impartial witnesses in public view.
Headnote:
ACQUITTAL - Appeal under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC, 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents for various offences under the IPC and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The respondents were acquitted by the Trial Court on the ground that no caste-related remarks were uttered within public view.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was made out and that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court also noted the lack of medical evidence to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant and her witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged caste-related remarks and the requirement of public view under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, as well as the lack of medical evidence to support the complainant's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for independent and impartial witnesses in public view, as well as the requirement of medical evidence to substantiate the allegations. It also highlighted the stringent proof required for graver offences under the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant/complainant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 10/2009 in FIR No. 55/2009 under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi and 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) whereby the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted.
2. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi against Soraj Singh, Smt. Rama Sharma and Shikha for offence punishable under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi and 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of the Act. Vide order dated 28.03.2009, under the directions of the ACMM, SHO Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi registered an FIR under the provisions of the Act. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted initially against Soraj Singh. Since accused Rama Sharma was evading her arrest as such after she surrendered in the Court, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against her. Accused Shikha was found to be a juvenile as such charge-sheet was filed in Juvenile Justice Board against her.
3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined six witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons wherein they denied the allegations made against them. They examined eight witnesses in support of their defence. Vide impugned judgment, accused persons were acquitted of the offence alleged against them by granting them benefit of doubt on the ground that only an altercation took place between the complainant and the accused persons on the issue of throwing garbage by the complainant and no caste related remarks were uttered by the accused persons. Moreover, in order to attract the provisions of the Act, it was necessary that caste related remarks must have been passed within public view which was missing in the instant case.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant.
5. Assailing the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the complainant had succeeded in establishing her case not only by her own deposition but the same was duly corroborated by her husband Mr. Surender Singh (PW2) and PW4 Smt. Rajesh Lata (PW4). The Trial Court fell in error in ignoring their testimony and acquitting the accused persons. The impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences alleged against them.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents nos.2 and 3/accused referred to the limitations on the powers of this Court while entertaining an appeal against acquittal by submitting that the Court is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. The Trial Court has minutely considered the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and also took into consideration the defence raised by the accused and then acquitted the respondent nos. 2 and 3/accused which does not suffer from any infirmity as such the appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have given my considered thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
8. This is an appeal against an acquittal order and the law regarding appeal against acquittal is by now well-settled. In Muralidhar @ Gidda and Another v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 730, Honble Supreme Court referred to the earlier decisions in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 which are reproduced as under:-
Lord Russel in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, AIR 1934 Privy Council 227 highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquitta
