STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acquittal of the respondent in case under Section 3(10) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in short "The Act", has been challenged by the State in the present appeal.

(2.) In short, the prosecution story as emerges from the prosecution evidence, can be summed up thus. On 11.4.2001, a general house of Gram Panchayat Dangar was convened to identify the eligible persons to be nominated as IRDP persons. Complainant PW-1 Mehant Ram, retired Kanungo, sponsored the name of his son PW-2 Hem Ram for his inclusion in the list, which was objected to by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", on the ground that he is son of a retiree, who also owns landed property. It is alleged that though the complainant did not take this objection in the right spirit and according to the complainant, the accused became furious and addressed him "Sara Hua Julah" and threatened him to give shoe beatings. It is also the case of the complainant that for about two days, he was under shock. He had also filed a complaint to the Pradhan Gram Panchayat, but she did nothing. Ultimately, he lodged FIR with the police under the aforesaid Section, which was investigated.

(3.) On completing challan, it was presented in the Court of Special Judge, Bilaspur. The accused was accordingly charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the aforesaid offence, precisely, on the grounds that the prosecution evidence is contradictory and DW-1 Smt. Rajo Devi, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, who herself belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and happened to be present there, noticed that on the objection raised by the accused the complainant got annoyed, lost his tamper and picked up quarrel with the accused. The accused did not utter any word in her presence against the complainant and his son Hem Raj. In the meantime, people assembled there. They intervened and separated the parties.