Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Decided on: 12 September, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 113/2016
VIRENDER VERMA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Jitendra K. Jha and Mr.
Sarsij Narayan, Advocates.
versus
NEERAJ BAJPAI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Rajesh Anand, Ms.Radha,
Mr.Pawan Yadav, Mr.Abhijit
Kumar, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with ASI Amit Lal, PS
DIU/NDD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
th
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16 December, 2015 whereby the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act')
the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present leave to appeal petition.
2. Sequence of events leading to the prosecution case are that a written
complaint was given by Virender Verma (petitioner herein) wherein he
stated that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste namely 'Koli' caste and was
working in United News of India (UNI) as a Senior Transmission
nd
Supervisor. He received a letter dated 2 March 2013 from the UNI office
CRL.L.P. 113/2016 Page 1 of 6
pursuant to which he had gone there to meet Neeraj Bajpai (respondent No.1
th
herein) on 14 March 2013 in his room where Ashok Upadhaya (respondent
No.3 herein) and Mohan Lal Joshi (respondent No.2 herein) were already
present. While Virender Verma was talking to Neeraj Bajpai regarding
departmental work, Ashok Upadhaya and Mohan Lal Joshi started shouting
at him and uttered the words " saale hum log kisi chamar chumar avam
ansuchit jati kay logo ko varishtha kay bavjud uprokt shakha kay pabhari
nahi banatay hai." Neeraj Bajpai while abusing Virender Verma said "saale
chamar yaha se turant bhaag jaoo anaytha tumhari jaan ki khair nahi hai."
Two senior journalists Dr. Samrendar Kant Pathak and M.A. Alamgir
intervened when they witnessed such derogatory remarks being made
against the petitioner. Written complaint was proved vide Ex.PW-3/A.
3. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the ACP New Delhi District.
On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, FIR No.61/2013 (Ex.PX1)
was registered at PS Parliament Street for offence punishable under Section
3(1)(x) SC/ST Act.
4. Upon registration of FIR, statements of Virender Verma,
Dr.Samrendar Kant Pathak and M.A. Alamgir were recorded. The caste
th
certificate of Virender Verma was received from him on 4 June 2013.
Statements of several other employees who were present in the room
adjacent to the place of incident were also recorded. The Call Data Records
of Virender Verma, Neeraj Bajpai, Mohan Lal Joshi, Ashok Upadhyaya,
M.A. Alamgir and Samrendar Kant Pathak were obtained.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charge
th
was framed vide order dated 8 May 2014 under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act.
CRL.L.P. 113/2016 Page 2 of 6
6. Virender Verma (PW-3) deposed in sync with his written complaint.
In his cross-examination, he stated that his appointment at UNI was not
made on the basis of his caste and he had been promoted three times
between 1982-1989. There was no document to show that he had attended
th
office on the date of the incident. He had not attended office since 7
January 2013. He had received a notice from Roshan Mehrotra regarding
his absence in office pursuant to which he had been directed to join in
nd
January 2013. He did not send a reply to this notice. On 2 March, 2013 an
office memo had been issued to him regarding absence from duty without
intimation to the office. He did not reply to the said office memo. He
nd
admitted that prior to 2 March 2013, numerous memos had been issued to
th
him by the Administrative Officer, UNI. He admitted that prior to 14
March, 2013 he and the two witnesses namely M.A. Alamgir and Samrendar
Kant Pathak were either facing disciplinary action or had been transferred or
suspended for serious misconduct. He was running an organization called
'UNI Bachao Andolan' along with Samrendar Kumar Pathak and M.A.
Alamgir.
th
7. Samrendar Kant Pathak (PW-4) deposed that on 14 March 2013 he
was present at the office along with M.A. Alamgir in a room adjacent to the
room of Neeraj Bajpai. On hearing some persons screaming from the
adjacent room, he peeped into the room of Neeraj Bajpai and saw Ashok
Upadhaya, M.L. Joshi and Virender Verma in his room. He stated that
Ashok Upadhaya and M.L. Joshi were abusing Virender Verma with caste
specific derogatory remarks and said that they could not appoint a person of
such caste to a senior post. Virender Verma was requesting the respondents
with folded hands not to humiliate him. He along with M.A. Alamgir
CRL.L.P. 113/2016 Page 3 of 6
intervened and brought Virender Verma out of the room. In his cross-
examination he admitted that there was no document to show his presence in
the office on the date of the incident. He stated that he was running an
organization called 'UNI Bachao Andolan' along with Virender Kumar.
th
They were participating in its day to day activities. He stated that on 14
March 2013 he along with Virender Verma and M.A. Alamgir had made a
written complaint which was sent by post to the office of Special Registrar
Societies, Parliament Street.
8. As per the charge-sheet there were only two witnesses to the incident.
One of whom M.A. Alamgir could not be examined as he had expired. Both
Virender Verma and Samrendar Kant Pathak admitted that they were
running an organization 'UNI Bachao Andolan' and used to protest against
the management of UNI and the respondents. They admitted that they were
facing disciplinary proceedings in UNI prior to the date of the incident.
9. Virender Verma and Samrendar Kant Pathak were not only co-
workers in UNI but are very closely associated with each other. They are
also members of the same organization that has been agitating against the
management of UNI wherein they have been making demands which
included that all transfers, promotions, suspensions, demotions etc. passed
after April 2012 be cancelled immediately. They are also facing disciplinary
proceedings in UNI.
10. Learned Trial Court rightly excluded the testimony of Samrendar
Kant Pathak from consideration keeping in mind his close, personal and
professional association with Virender Verma as per the ratio laid down in
Daya Bhatnagar v. State reported as (2004) 109 DLT 915. In Daya
Bhatnagar (supra), it was held that 'public view' for the purposes of Section
CRL.L.P. 113/2016 Page 4 of 6
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would have to mean presence of public persons. It
was held that the public persons present should be independent and impartial
and not interested in any of the parties and persons having any kind of close
relationship or association with the complainant would get excluded.
11. While Virender Kumar had deposed that he lodged the complaint in
person along with Samrendar Kant Pathak and M.A. Alamgir, however,
Samrendar Kant Pathak in his cross-examination stated that the said
complaint had been sent through post and was not lodged in person. From
the evidence of Samrendar Kant Pathak it is evident that he was trying to
cover up the statement made by Virender Verma that they were both present
th
in the office of Special Registrar Society at 5:00 P.M. on 14 March 2013.
12. Another aspect required to be appreciated is that when Virender
Verma and Samrendar Kant Pathak jointly made a complaint against the
same persons on the same day then it is quite unnatural for Virender Verma
to have gone alone to the office of Neeraj Bajpai to discuss departmental
issues while Samrendar Kant Pathak and M.A. Alamgir were present in the
adjacent room.
th
13. Virender Verma admitted having received calls on 14 March 2013 at
4:51 P.M. and 5:01 P.M. The cell ID chart when compared with the CDR
reflects that the location of the mobile phone of Virender Verma was at
Mehrasons Jewellers and DLF City Square respectively, thus, making it
unlikely for him to be present in the office of UNI at Rafi Marg at the time
of the alleged incident.
14. View expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge based on
the evidence on record is plausible. Hence, the impugned judgment
CRL.L.P. 113/2016 Page 5 of 6
acquitting the respondents cannot be said to be perverse warranting
interference of this Court.
15. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
16. TCR be returned.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
‘rk’
CRL.L.P. 113/2016 Page 6 of 6