SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is preferred under Sec. 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 14-A and 15-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 8/9/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in case bearing FIR No. 35 dtd. 22/5/2016 under Ss. 148, 149, 323, 341 of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1) {za (B)} of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Jhansa.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 21/5/2016, Inspector/SHO Nirmal Kumar alongwith other police officials was present at Salpani chowk, where he received V. T. message from Control Room, Kurukshetra that some persons of Rajput community had stopped the function of Gurchari of Balmiki community and an altercation had taken place between them, on which Inspector/SHO Nirmal Kumar alongwith other police official reached Bus stand of village Bhustala and saw that many persons had gathered there and the situation was very critical. Suresh Kumar complainant moved application to Inspector/SHO Nirmal Kumar alleging therein that on 21/5/2016 there was marriage of his son Sandeep. They were going to the temple of Balmiki in their village to pay obeisance, when some boys of Rajput community quarrelled with them and called him Chura and ashamed their community. 50-60 Rajputs i.e. Shankar, Kuldeep, Roopa, Bablu, Kaptan, Sachin, Joni, Charan, Mohit, Jassi, Tarsem, Vikram, Jagbir, Pappu, Suku, Sonu, Parmod, Mahul, Aman and Raju came with lathis, dandas, gandasis and attacked them and abused them. He prayed that action be taken against all the above said persons.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that learned Court below has opined that occurrence was said to be of 21/5/2016 and the accused persons were arrested on 24/5/2016, 26/5/2016 and 28/5/2016. The star witnesses of the prosecution were the police officials who have not uttered even a single word about the time of information received by them and if the occurrence had taken place at 08.00 pm while the complaint was taken at 01.00 am from the complainant. As per the statement of the complainant, the announcement was made in both the temples of the village that complainant's son should not ride a horse in his marriage ceremony but there is no such evidence or mention in the complaint or in the testimony of any of the witnesses with regard to the said announcement. The Pujari of any of the temples have also not been made witness by the prosecution to prove as to who made the announcement or whether any such announcement was made in this regard or not. There was no videography or photographs taken by the police or by the complainant party to corroborate their oral version with regard to identification of the accused to be present at the spot as there was different versions of the witnesses of the prosecution with regard to presence of the accused after the arrival of the police at the spot. Thus, it was opined that prosecution had failed to establish the presence of all the accused at the spot and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the common object of the members of the assembly regarding Ss. 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC the prosecution was required to prove the same by cogent and reliable evidence. There was no medical evidence to prove the injuries, if any, suffered by the complainant, any of the family members or the investigating officer. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the identification of the accused persons. Moreover, no evidence was found regarding recovery of any stones, lathies or any deadly weapons from the possession of the accused persons and as the case of the prosecution was found to be doubtful, thus the ingredients of the offences under Sec. 3(1) {za (B)} of SC/ST Act have to be proved and when the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients required to prove this offence, no offence punishable under Sec. 3(1) {za (B)} of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out against the accused persons.