IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 260 of 2012 Reserved on: 25.06.2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 Chet Ram and others ...Appellants Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for re porting?

For the Appellants : M/s. Nishant Khidtta and Ashok Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge i The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.06.2000 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, (Special Judge), Shimla (learned Trial Court) in Session Trial No.18-S/7 of 2010 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short SC & ST Act), 1989. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accu.sed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (v), 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xiv) of the SC & ST Act. It was asserted that the informant Tara Chand (PW1) made a comp laint (Ex.PW1/A) to the police stating that he is a resident oof village Mundu, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. The vi llage has a joint water spring and a water supply scheme. Thre house of Chet Ram and the other accused is located adjacent to the informant’s house. The accused belongs to the Rajput caste. They abuse the informant in the name of his caste and do not allow him to take water from the water spring. The informant repaired his house and afÏxed window panes and tin sheets. Naresh Kumar came to the informant’s house on 20.08.2009 and taunted him for afÏxing window panes and tin sheets. He abused the informant in the name of his caste and pelted stones at the informant’s house. Tara Devi (PW3) heard the abuses. The informant made a complaint to the police; however, the matter was settled between the parties, and a compromise (Ex.PW6/A) was reduced to writing. Accused Sewa Ram came to the informant’s house on 20.09.2009 and abused him in the name of his caste. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW13/A). Man Singh (PW14) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site p.lan (Ex.PW14/A). He seized the informant’s caste certificate (Ex.PW1/B) vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). He also obtained a copy of Parivar Register (Ex.PW12/A) from Babu Ram . Hira Nand (PW8) issued the certificate (Ex.PW8/A1 to Eox.PW8/A8) showing the caste of the accused. He issued th e Jamabandi (Ex.PW8/B) and Tatima (Ex.PW8/C). The abstrract (Ex.PW10/A) showing that the 'Chanal' caste was included in the Scheduled Caste was taken in possession. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Theog, who committed it to learned Special Judge for trial.

3. Learned Special Judge charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xiv) of the SC & ST Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case. Tara Chand (PW1) is the informant. Sandla Devi (PW2) is the informant’s wife. Tara Devi (PW3) is an eyewitness. Surinder Singh (PW4) and Kewal Ram (PW5) proved that the accused prevented the daughters of the informant from taking wa.ter from the water source. Daulat Ram (PW6) settled the dispute between the parties. Pushpa (PW7) is the informant’s daughter. Hira Nand (PW8) was posted as a Patwari w ho issued the caste certificate, Jamabandi and tatima.o Suraj Singh (PW9) countersigned the caste certifica tes. Uttam Thakur (PW10) produced the notification ofr the Scheduled Caste. Constable Kewal R