KRISHAN AND OTHERS Vs. RATTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order and charge sheet dated 10.4.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which, the charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 323/ 149, 506/ 149, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 149 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the complaint false and baseless allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. He further submits that the respondent party was the aggressors and caused injuries to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3. He further submits that the said case is a counter -blast of the FIR lodged by the petitioners. He further submits that initially a DDR No. 18 dated 8.9.2006 was lodged against the co -accused of the petitioners and thereafter, by improving the version, the complainant filed a complaint and named all the petitioners. In the DDR, no allegation punishable under Section 3 of the Act has been levelled against the petitioners by the complainant. He cites Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. & others : 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 171 and submits that mere utterance of offending words will not itself constitute an offence under the Act, in the absence of intention of mens rea to humiliate the member of the scheduled caste in public view.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that there are sufficient evidence against the petitioners. In the complaint, the allegations have been specifically made against the petitioners. The learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioners.

(3.) AS per MLR Ex. CW1/B and Ex. CW2/B, the petitioners gave several injuries to Naresh and Rattan Singh. In the complaint, there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they caused injuries to the complainants. It is further averred that the accused threatened the complainants and used derogatory words in the name of their caste. Both the parties are the residents of the same village. Material on record is capable of prima facie inferring strong suspicion about the commission of offence and sufficient for framing the charge. At the time of framing of charge, only material produced by the prosecution is to be considered.