DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal preferred under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 94/2015 whereby the learned trial Judge accepted the application preferred by the complainant respondent No. 2 Richpal Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and directed addition of the appellant herein as an accused in the case to face trial with the charge-sheeted accused Vikram Singh.

(2.) I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

(3.) The F.I.R. of an alleged incident of assault which took place on 05.07.2015 at 9.30 PM was lodged by the respondent No. 2 complainant at the P.S. Samejakothi on 07.07.2015. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that whilst the complainant was returning to his home and was passing by the house of the accused persons, at that time, the accused appellant Devi Singh and his son Vikram Singh stopped him on the way and hurled caste based abuses towards him. Vikram Singh was having axe in his hand with which he tried to kill the complainant. Numerous injuries were caused to him in the incident. After investigation of the allegations set out by the complainant in his F.I.R., the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet only against Vikram Singh and exonerated the appellant Devi Singh. During investigation, the complainant himself executed an affidavit dated 13.07.2015 wherein he clearly admitted that the accused persons did not abuse or insult him and that he had lodged the F.I.R. because of some misguidance. Be that as it may, after submission of the charge-sheet, the trial of the accused Vikram Singh was commenced. The respondent No. 2 complainant Richpal was examined as P.W.1. In his statement, he alleged that Devi Singh taunted him and used profane language on the ground of his caste and thereafter tried to assault him. Mainpal and Baldev intervened and saved him. Thereafter, Vikram Singh started his tractor and chased the complainant. He was taken to the Raisinghnagar Hospital from where he was referred to Sriganganagar for the treatment of his injuries. Richpal was confronted with his affidavit and his previous statements during cross-examination. He admitted that he had sworn the affidavit but could not give any satisfactory explanation for the contents thereof. The witness Baldev alleged in his testimony that Devi Singh caught hold of Richpal's hand and then both grappled with each other. At that time, Devi Singh insulted Richpal with foul caste based abuses. Thereafter, Vikram Singh and Devi Singh both collaborated and assaulted Richpal. Mainpal, upon being examined as P.W.3 alleged that while he, Baldev and Richpal were talking to each other, Devi Singh came around. Thereafter, Richpal and Devi Singh started quarreling with each other. Devi Singh tried to assault Richpal, who fell down on a wooden log and got hurt. Richpal's brother and father came there and saved him. Devi Singh abused Richpal. On going through these statements and particularly, the affidavit voluntarily executed by Richpal during investigation, it is apparent that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the manner in which the incident took place. Ex facie, after testing the evidence available on record on the anvil of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 3 SCC 92, this Court is duly satisfied that the evidence led by the prosecution and the other material available on record is not such which can convince the Court regarding existence of evidence stronger than that which is required to frame a charge against the accused appellant Devi Singh. Ex facie, the grave and significant contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses are sufficient to convince the Court that the direction to summon the appellant as an additional accused in the case is totally unjustified.