Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 15628
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
MS. .... – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.REV.P.-790/2022
The court upheld the discharge of the accused under the SC/ST Act due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, emphasizing the need for credible evidence to establish caste-based intent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354A(1) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Discharge of accused for offences under SC/ST Act - The learned ASJ discharged the accused due to lack of evidence fulfilling essential ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act - The complainant's statements were inconsistent and delayed, undermining credibility - The prosecution failed to establish that the alleged actions were motivated by the complainant's caste. (Paras 4, 14, 31, 33)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 227 and 228 - The scope of interference by High Courts in revisional jurisdiction against discharge orders is limited - The trial court must only determine if there is a prima facie case against the accused. (Paras 26, 34)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a teacher, alleged that the principal of her school assaulted her and made caste-specific remarks. The FIR was filed after a significant delay, and the testimonies of witnesses were inconsistent. (Paras 5-6)
Findings of Court:
The ASJ found that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence to proceed under the SC/ST Act, leading to the discharge of the accused. (Paras 14, 33)
Issues: Whether the essential ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act were fulfilled, and whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused. (Paras 14, 33)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that discrepancies in the complainant's statements and the absence of independent witnesses undermined the prosecution's case, justifying the discharge of the accused. (Paras 31, 33)
Result: The impugned order discharging the accused is upheld, and the petitions challenging the discharge are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
CRL.M.A. 17829/2023 in CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 (condonation of delay of 216 days in filing the present petition)
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay in filing the present petition is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23934/2022 CRL.REV.P. 724/2023
3. The present petitions are filed challenging the order dated 08.09.2022 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 497/2010 arising out of FIR No. 413/2014 dated 26.09.2014, registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, for offence under Section 345A (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
4. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, had discharged the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’).
Brief Facts
5. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had been employed as teacher at Dhanpat Virmani Senior Secondary School for seven years and the respondent/accused was the principal of the school. It is alleged that on 20.08.2014 at about 08:20 AM, the accused – Dharambir Singh called the complainant to his office, and directed her to sit down. When the complainant objected to this, the accused – Dharambir Singh held her hand. The complainant tried to free herself, and in the course of this scuffle, she fell on the floor. It is alleged that the complainant was six months pregnant at the time, and narrowly escaped a miscarriage. At this point, the respondent hurled abuses and uttered caste-specific remarks at her. The co-accused – Gyan Singh was alleged to be present in the room, and aided the accused – Dharambir Singh in committing the said acts.
6. Subsequently, other employees, namely Manoj Verma and Neelam Yadav arrived at the spot, and upon finding the complainant on the floor, moaning in pain, Manoj Verma advised to take her to the hospital. The complainant was escorted to a nearby nursing home by Neelam Yadav where she was treated. The complainant made the complaint about the said incident on 28.08.2014. The FIR was registered on 26.09.2014 under Section 354(A)(1) of the IPC.
7. During the investigation, statements under Section 161 of the CrPC of the witnesses – Neelam Yadav and Manoj Verma were recorded. In their statements, they stated that they did not hear the respondent using casteist remarks against the complainant.
8. The complainant, thereafter, filed an application dated 10.10.2014 under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the learned Trial Court seeking directions to the concerned SHO to add Sections 354/509/312/511 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST Act. The said application was dismissed on 03.06.2015. However, the complainant was given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence under Section 200 of the CrPC. In her statement, on 24.02.2016, the complainant as witness-1, stated that the accused – Dharambir Singh held her hand, and tried to hug her. As she tried to escape from his clutches, he continually touched her private parts. The complainant raised an alarm for help, but the accused pushed, causing her to fall. The accused then made caste-specific remarks at the complainant. At this time, the co-accused – Gyan Singh assisted him. She stated that upon hearing the complainant’s plea for help, the other teacher, namely, Manoj Verma came to the principal’s office, followed by Neelam Yadav. She further deposed that the accused – Dharambir Singh, during the alleged incident, used caste-based remarks and said “tera jaise chure chamar mujhe roz milte hain, roz aate hain mere paas to mein kya karon, tere par dil aa gaya hai, tu saali churi har saal pet fula kar aa jaati hai aur mein kutch karun to bura lagta hai”.
9. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC on 23.04.2016 before the learned MM, wherein she supported her version during the pre-summon
