BHURMAL Vs. SURAJMALÂ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Bhurmal, by leave from this Court, against the judgment of the Special Magistrate, Alwar dated June 14, 1982 whereby the respondents were acquitted for the offence under section 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and sections 323 and 504, IPC.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of this appeal are that on September 1, 1980, the appellant had filed a private criminal complaint against the respondents alleging that on a day prior at about 4 p.m. the mother of the complainant named Mst. Mamli had gone to draw water from Khatiwala well situated in village Siwana, District Alwar. It was stated that while Mst. Mamli was drawing water from the said well, the respondents armed with lathies and Jelies formed an unlawful assembly and obstructed Mst. Mamli from drawing water from the said well on the ground that she was Jatiya by caste and an untouchable. Mst - Mamli protested as she had been drawing water from this well from before and insisted that she would draw the water on that day also. Thereupon, respondents broke the pitcher with Mst. Mamli on her head, dragged her down the wall, assaulted by slaps and did not allow her to take water from the well. The respondents told that they would not allow an untouchable to draw the water from the above well. The complainant along with her mother, went to Police Station to lodge a First Information Report but the respondents were already there and the police did not accept the report from the complainant. Upon these allegations, the complainant asserted that the respondents had committed offence under section 3 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and under sections 324 and 504, IPC.

(3.) THE case was tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate and after trial, the said Magistrate found that Mst. Mamli had not sustained any injury. She had also admitted that previously the respondents had not obstructed her from drawing water from the said well. It was also apparent that litigation was also going on in between the parties. The witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant belonged to his family. Keeping all these in view, the Special Magistrate felt that the allegations made by the appellant against respondents were vague and he acquitted the latter of the offence.