KUSUM LATA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 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 Ss. 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 Sec. 200 read with Sec. 156(3) Cr.PC in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi against Soraj Singh, Smt. Rama Sharma and Shikha for offence punishable under Ss. 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.