Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ramneesh Kumar @ Lavallu - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.15 of 2010
Decided On : 06-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr Vinod Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Victim :Mr Pawan Gautam, Advocate.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of caste-based abuse due to unreliable witness testimonies and significant delays in reporting the incident.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 353 and 506 - Conviction of accused for abuse and threats against a Medical Officer in the name of his caste - The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offences. Material discrepancies in witness statements and delay in lodging the FIR weaken the prosecution's case (Paras 10, 19, 36).

(B) Evidence - The testimonies of the informant and supporting witnesses were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and absence of supporting evidence; the learned Trial Court erred in convicting the accused based on insufficient evidence (Paras 9, 10, 24).

Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that the accused abused him in a caste-based manner and obstructed his duties. However, subsequent investigations revealed significant discrepancies in the informant's account and the testimonies of supporting witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there were major holes in the prosecution case; the informant's complaints were also undermined by evidence from defence witnesses (Paras 22, 36).

Issues: Whether there was an abuse in the name of caste and if the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that narrative variances, along with significant delays in reporting the matter to police, undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s account. The absence of consistent supporting evidence was pivotal to the ruling (Paras 15, 20).

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2010 passed by learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act) and Sections 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced as under:-

All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the informant, Dr Parkash Chand (PW-1), was posted as a Medical Officer/In-charge in Civil Hospital Chintpurni. He was examining the patients on 03.06.2005 in his room. Accused Ramneesh Kumar @ Lavllu came to the informant’s duty room at about 11:30 p.m. and started abusing him. The accused caught hold of the informant’s neck and abused him in the name of his caste. He threatened to kill the informant and his family members. He tore the attendance register(Ext.P-1) kept on the table. The matter was reported to the police, and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-3/A) was registered in the Police Station. Vimal Gupta (DW-6) investigated the matter. He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. Ashwani Kumar (PW-4) produced the service book and personal file of the informant. The informant belonged to the Scheduled Caste as per the service record. It was found after the investigation that no incident, as alleged by the informant, had occurred. There was a dispute between the informant and the accused regarding the deflation of the tyres of the informant’s scooter. No caste-based remarks were uttered. The OPD register was concealed by the informant, and a fresh OPD register was started, which showed that the informant intended to implicate the accused. Hence, a final report was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P.

3. The notice of final report was issued to the informant, who filed a protest petition and examined himself.

4. Learned Magistrate concluded that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused; therefore, the final report submitted by the police was rejected, and cognisance was taken.

5. When the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge, Una (learned Trial Court) after completing the formalities.

6. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x)of SC&ST and Sections 353 and 506 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Dr Parkash Chand (PW-1) is the informant. Lekh Raj (PW-2)is the eyewitness. Parkash Chand (PW-3)recorded the F.I.R. Ashwani Kumar (PW- 4)produced the service record of the informant. Mahinder Singh (PW-5) could not trace the summoned record. G.R.Chaudhary (PW-6) did not support the prosecution’s case.

8. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that a false case was registered against him. He examined six witnesses in defence.

9. Learned Trial Court held that the informant’s testimony was duly corroborated by the testimony of Lekhraj. Nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to show that they were deposing falsely. The fact that the presence of Lekh Raj (PW-2)in the Civil Hospital was not recorded in the OPD register or that the prescription slips were not seized by the Investigating Officer would not make the prosecution’s case doubtful. The testimony of the informant proved that the accused had abused him in the name of his caste. Minor discrepancies in the stat