PIARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner-complainant Piara Singh son of Chet Ram(for brevity "the complainant") has filed the complaint against Baljit Singh son of Pritam Singh and Jatti Singh son of Lal Singh, accused-respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 323, 341, 506 & 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), inter alia, pleading that he was the Sarpanch of village Khurd, Teshil Nabha and belongs to Ramdasia caste. The respondents-accused are the residents of his village and had been causing obstacles in the development work of the village. The accused along with other residents of the village had filed many cases with an intention to grab the property of Gram Panchayat.

(2.) Sequelly, the complainant claimed that on 28.05.2007, he had gone to the office of BDPO, Nabha for issuance of yellow card. The BDPO uttered derogatory remarks against the caste of the complainant and defamed him. He moved an application to the DSP, Nabha on 29.05.2007. On that day, when he was returning back to his house, in the meantime, the accused met him. Baljit Singh-accused uttered derogatory words and threatened him to teach a lesson for defending the cases of shamlat land, pertaining to the village. Jatti Singh-accused caught hold of him from his beard, gave slaps and threw the complainant on the ground. He also gave the kick blows in his abdomen. Both the accused were stated to have uttered derogatory remarks against the caste of the complainant. In the background of these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused(private respondents), in the manner described hereinabove.

(3.) The Judge, Special Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the private respondents-accused, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated July 18, 2011.