DUNI CHAND Vs. SRINIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE attainment of political independence and expiry of about half a century, the poor and down -trodden masses of this country, are still under the grip and clutches of social evils of which untouchability is the greatest dragon. It cannot be denied that the untouchability is a malignantic in nature which is slowly but steadily spreading its evils in the social fabric of the Indian society. The nation as a whole acknowledged the havoc which is likely resultant of the practice of untouchability and while enacting the Constitution for themselves provided sufficient safeguards to prevent and eliminate the evil of untouchability. Article 17 of the Constitution of India unequivocally declared that, Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law". Article 35 of the Constitution provides that Parliament shall have and the Legislature of the State shall not have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters which under Cl. (3) of Article 16, Cl. (3) of Article 32, Articles, 33 and 34 may be provided by law made by Parliament. Central Act No. XXII of 1955 earlier known as "Untouchability Offences Act", (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was enacted as far back as on 8.5.1955 which was later on amended and substituted as "Protection of Civil Rights Act", vide amending Act No. 106 of 1976, to prescribe punishment for preaching or practising of untouchability, for the enforcement of disabilities arising therefrom and for the matters connected therewith. In the statement of objects and reasons it was specifically mentioned:

(2.) DESPITE such sincere efforts and effective legislation, the offences pertaining to untouchability, though on decrease, yet, have not been completely eliminated. The upper caste and violaters of law have been finding ways and means to perpetuate the agony and mental tenure of untouchability under various pretexts, covers and cloaks. The present case is one of such exceptions where the accused -respondents have succeeded in getting an order of acquittal despite practising untouchability under the cloak and protection of the technicalities of law, which, in fact, did not exist. The trial magistrate below while acquitting the respondents adopted an approach which was neither permissible nor can be justified under the scheme of the Act and the constitutional guarantees. A complaint under Sec. 7 of the Untouchability Offences Act of 1955, was filed against the respondents in the court of Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Hiranagar, wherein the complainant alleged that he, on the marriage of his son, had invited all the residents of the village including the Harijans for taking meals at his residence. When Nanku and Sukhia, both Harijans, were taking meals alongwith other persons of the area, the respondents came at his residence and upon seeing the aforesaid two Harijans, got infuriated and declared that they will not take their meals because Nanku and others, who were Harijans, were taking meals in that house. The respondents turned out Nanku and Sukhia from the house of the complainant and on account of their action, the other persons who had assembled for the feast also ran away. In order to prove his case the complainant produced Kali Dass and Nanak Chand as witnesses besides getting his own statement recorded. The trial court erroneously held that the complaint under the Act could be filed only by a person belonging to the community of untouchables and by no other person. It also found, on facts, that the accused -respondents were proved to have not commuted any offence under the Act.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In order to appreciate the facts and law involved in the case it is necessary to have a resume of the evidence produced in the case. Duni Chand complainant in his statement recorded in the trial court deposed that in connection with the marriage of his son he had invited the people of the area including Harijans over a feast. The respondents on seeing Harijans taking meals abused them and refused to take meals at a place where the said Harijans were sitting. The Harijans were forced to leave the place where they were taking meals alongwith others on the invitation of the complainant. Kali Dass PW while supporting the version narrated by the complainant stated that the respondents had forced the aforesaid two Harijans to run away from the place where they were taking meals. PW Nanak Chand, also made a similar statement.