SEWA DASS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, whereby they stand convicted of offences, punishable under Sections 376(2) (g), 341 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as follows: Under Section 376 Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of read with Section Rs.10,000/- each; in default of payment of fine 34 IPC rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years each. Under Section 323 Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of read with Section Rs.500/- each; in default of payment of fine, 34 IPC rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 months each. Under Section 341 Fine of Rs.500/- each; in default of payment of fine read with Section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 34 IPC one month each.

(2.) APPEAL was filed by the appellants through Counsel Shri Anup Rattan, Advocate. Later on, they engaged one more counsel, namely Varinder Singh, Advocate. Today, when the matter was taken up, nobody appeared for the appellants. The Court waited for Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? some time and when nobody appeared even after wait, we proceeded to decide the matter on merits by ourselves. We requested the learned Additional Advocate General to read the judgment and the evidence. In the meanwhile, one Advocate, named Inder Dutt, came to the Court and occupied the seat meant for the counsel for the appellants. After we had finished perusal of the entire record, we asked the said Advocate to argue the case. He stood up and stated that original Counsel Shri Anup Rattan was out of station and, therefore, the matter be adjourned. On being asked as to why he did not appear when the matter was taken up, he replied that he was busy in another Court. When further asked as to where the other counsel, named Varinder Singh was, he said that he had no knowledge if any Advocate by the name of Varinder Singh, had been engaged by the appellants, besides Shri Anup Rattan, Advocate. We having completed the job of perusal of the record and the Advocate appearing vice counsel for the appellants having failed to answer our queries satisfactorily, particularly with regard to the absence of the second counsel engaged by the appellants, namely Varinder Singh, we declined the request for adjournment and decided to dispose of the matter on merits.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined thirteen witnesses in all, to bring the charge home to the respondents. Respondents denied having committed any offence. They took the plea that when the prosecutrix was returning to the village and travelling by a public bus, one of them, namely Jaswant Singh, who belongs to a "Chamar" caste, which is one of the scheduled castes, sat beside her on a seat of the bus. This annoyed the prosecutrix, who belongs to a Rajput caste and she asked respondent Jaswant Singh how did he dare sit by her side and when he retorted that it was a public bus, she slapped him and called him names. Jaswant Singh protested and proclaimed that he would be lodging a report with the police under the law pertaining to atrocities against the scheduled castes. It was stated that all the respondents on reaching the village, went to the Pardhan of the village, PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, the same very evening and complained to her about the ...5... aforesaid conduct of the prosecutrix in the bus, but the Pardhan put them off by saying that next morning she would be calling the prosecutrix and after making the enquiries, decide about the further course of action. It was also pleaded that, with a view to pre-empting the threatened action of the respondents of lodging the report against the prosecutrix, the latter cooked up a false story and made a false report to the police.