Court Finds Prosecution Evidence Insufficient and Grants Benefit of Doubt to Accused
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court acquitted Udaiveer Singh, a senior municipal officer, who was previously convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The conviction was based on allegations that Singh made caste-based derogatory remarks to a subordinate, PW2, within public view. However, the High Court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and granted the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, presiding over the appeal, scrutinized the prosecution's case, which had been initiated following a complaint by PW2. The complaint alleged that Singh, belonging to an upper caste, had intentionally insulted PW2, a member of a Scheduled Caste, with the intent to humiliate him. The trial court had sentenced Singh to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000.
The High Court noted critical shortcomings in the prosecution's case. The complaint did not specify the date, time, or place of the alleged incident, nor did it confirm that the abuse occurred within public view—a crucial element for establishing the offense under the SC & ST Act. Additionally, the court highlighted an unexplained delay of approximately eight months in lodging the complaint, raising doubts about its genuineness.
Singh's defense argued that the complaint was motivated by retaliation against disciplinary actions he had initiated due to dereliction of duty by PW2 and other witnesses. The defense further pointed out that the complaint was filed after Singh had issued memos to the complainant and others for failing to report to work during an epidemic crisis. The defense's argument was supported by documentary evidence and admissions during cross-examination.
Justice Sudha expressed skepticism over relying solely on the testimony of interested witnesses—those who had received disciplinary memos from Singh—as their credibility was questionable. The court emphasized the absence of independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's claims, which further weakened the case.
In its judgment, the High Court stated, "Doubts arise in the mind of the Court regarding the prosecution case. Hence, I find that the trial court went wrong in relying on the unsatisfactory evidence on record to find the accused guilty. I find that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt."
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and acquitting Singh of all charges. Singh was subsequently released, and his bail bond was canceled.
This acquittal underscores the judiciary's rigorous standards for evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving allegations of caste-based atrocities. The judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for thorough and timely prosecution to uphold justice in sensitive matters.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish the incident occurred in public view and there exists unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.
Statutory provision(s): Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(x), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 313, 232, 235(1)
Udaiveer Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2843898
