HARI SINGH Vs. DHANNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by appellant against the judgment and order dtd. 17/7/2004 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar whereby the appellant and one Piara Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.300.00 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days each, under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the Act).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 Dhanna Singh lodged complaint under Sec. 3(1) (x) of the Act and under Ss. 323, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC against appellant Hari Singh, Piara Singh, Manjit Singh and Kartar Singh with the Illaqa Magistrate, wherein it was alleged that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste being Mazbi Sikh and his wife was sarpanch of the village at the time of occurrence. That on 20/7/2000 at about 02:00 PM, a panchayat was convened regarding dispute over shamlat land between appellant Hari Singh and one Rattan Singh son of Sardul Singh and at that time Manjit Singh stated to the complainant in a fit of anger "toon shamlat jameen daa mama lagda hai and toon iss jhagrhe wali thaan wichon kee lena hai". On this Manjit Singh was advised to use sober and polite language. Appellant Hari Singh addressed to the complainant "kuta churha naahove and toon kilo kilo daane mangda phirdan hai" and appellant Hari Singh further proclaimed that complainant being husband of a sarpanch, consider himself to be sarpanch of the village. In the meantime, Piara Singh addressed to the complainant "tenoo kute churhe noon pind wich nihi rehan diange". Manjit Singh started giving pushes to the complainant and also gave him fist blows and in this manner accused persons intentionally insulted and humiliated the complainant and made aspersions regarding his caste, in presence of the panchayat. The accused being influential persons, police failed to take any action against them.

(3.) After recording preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act.