2026:HHC:29453 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.70 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Satish Patial and Another ……...Appellants Versus Hoshiar Singh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. __________________________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Mr. Sidhharth, Ms. Kanika Verma and Ms. Shwetima Dogra, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun K. Brakta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocates General, for State. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant appeal filed under Section 374 of CrPC lays challenge to judgment dated 27.03.2010/30.03.2010 passed by learned Session Judge- cum-Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in private complaint No.38- G/VII-2007, whereby afore Court, while holding appellants-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of their having committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter ‘Act’) and Sections 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of six months each, and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- each under aforesaid provisions of law. 2026:HHC:29453 2 Court further ordered that in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other record made available to this Court, are that the respondent No.1, Hoshiar Singh (hereinafter ‘complainant’), filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging therein that he is working as a driver on the tractor of Ashwani Kumar, who had taken Nakki Khad, Pragpur on lease for extracting sand and grit for three years. He alleged that appellant-accused No.1, Satish Patial, who was Vice-President of Gram Panchayat, Pragpur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, and is also a contractor of liquor vend at Nakki Khad, is a very much influential person and he wants to oust aforesaid Ashwani Kumar from Nakki Khad. He alleged that above named Satish Patial intentionally harasses and threatens labour of Ashwani Kumar. He also alleged that above named Satish Patial succeeded in taking respondent- accused No.2, Dhakkan Saini, in his confidence, who was appointed Munshi- cum-Clerk by his owner, Ashwani Kumar, to collect the royalty of sand and grit. He alleged that respondent-accused No.2, Dhakkan Saini, did not give royalty amount of ₹11,000/- to Ashwani Kumar. Complainant further alleged that on 19.06.2007, appellant-accused No.1, Satish Patial, abused him and used derogatory and defamatory language by calling him "Julaha", and he also extended threats. He alleged that though he filed a complaint against appellant-accused No.1 at Police Station, Jawalamukhi on 20.06.2007, however, nothing was done by SHO or other staff of the Police Station, who 2026:HHC:29453 3 had friendly relations with the appellant/accused. He also alleged that on 24.06.2007, he visited the Police Station, but SHO, Police Station, Jawalamukhi, asked him to enter into compromise with the appellant- accused, otherwise he would involve him and his owner in some other false case. Further, complainant alleged that on 24.06.2007 at about 9:00 PM, while he was coming from Upper Pragpur to main road i.e. Pragpur-Bani road, accused persons came with intention to kill him, and they stopped the tractor at a place where Dangra-Siddh Pragpur road joins the Nakki road. He alleged that appellant-accused No.1, Satish Patial, started calling bad names to him and threatened with dire consequences in case he doesn't withdraw the complaint filed against him at Police Station, Jawalamukhi. He also alleged that above named Satish Patial asked him to stop working with Ashwani Kumar and claimed that he is Thakur by caste, and he knows how to reform lower caste persons like "Julaha" by beating them with shoes. Complainant further alleged that appellant-accused No.1 caught him from his collar and dragged him on the ground and in the meantime, appellant- accused No.2 was also calling him with bad names and started beating him with fists and blows. In the meantime, Vipin Kumar (PW-3) and Devraj suddenly reached there and asked accused what they were doing. He also alleged that there was one labor, Arun Kumar (PW-2), who also advised the accused persons not to involve in such kind of illegal activities and thereafter, accused persons fled away from the spot, but extended threats that they are 2026:HHC:29453 4 excusing him, and in case he doesn't stop working with Ashwani Kumar, they would kill him. 3. Taking pre-summoning evidence, Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Dehra, summoned the appellant-accused and thereafter, ultimately, matter came to be committed to learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, who, being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, framed charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Complainant, with a view to prove his case, examined four witnesses. Accused, in their statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the case of the complainant in toto, but despite opportunity, did not lead any evidence. Learned Court below, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record, held the accused guilty of their having committed offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced them as per the description given hereinabove. 5. In the afore background, appellants-accused approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein for their acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Court below. 6. At this stage, it is apt to take note of the fact that appellant-accused No.1, Satish Patial @ Pinki, died during the pendency of the appeal, and as such, appeal qua him was abated vide order dated 12.09.2025. 2026:HHC:29453 5 7. I have heard the parties and gone through the records. 8. Precisely, the case of the appellant-accused, as is projected in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Mr. Sidhharth, Ms. Kanika Verma and Ms. Shwetima Dogra, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused, is that Court below has fallen into grave error while holding accused guilty of their having committed offences under relevant provisions of law, detailed hereinabove, for the reason that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record by the complainant to prove his case. He submitted that the Court below not only misappreciated the evidence led on record by the complainant but also failed to take note of the fact that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies. 9. To substantiate his aforesaid submission, Mr. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, made this Court peruse complaint as well as evidence led on record by the complainant. He submitted that as per the complaint, alleged incident of calling the complainant by bad names had happened on 19.06.2007, but entire evidence which subsequently came to be led on record was with regard to alleged incident of 24.06.2007. He submitted that if the statements of the complainant and other material witnesses are read in conjunction, it clearly reveals that on 19.06.2007, no incident had taken place, which otherwise came to be reported in the complaint, and on 19.06.2007, there was no witness to the alleged occurrence. He submitted that though in the complaint it came to be submitted that at the first instance, complainant attempted to 2026:HHC:29453 6 file a complaint before Police Station, Jawalamukhi, but no record with regard to the same, if any, ever came to be placed on record. It is only after six days of the alleged incident that complainant concocted a new story which is otherwise totally contrary to the complaint as well as statements of the material complainant witnesses. Mr. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that Court below, on account of material contradictions and inconsistencies in the complaint as well as statements of the material complainant witnesses, ought not have taken the same into consideration while ascertaining guilt of the accused, who have been falsely implicated. Lastly, Mr. Chandel further submitted that in the case at hand, appellant- accused No.1, Satish Patial, has already expired, whereas, there is no specific allegation of beatings, abusing, if any, against the appellant-accused No.2, Dhakkan Saini. 10. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State, and Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Tarun K. Brakta, Advocate, representing the complainant, supported the impugned judgment of conviction. They further argued that Court below has appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and there is no scope of interference. They further argued that if the complaint is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that though on 19.06.2007, first occurrence happened and thereafter matter was reported to the Police but no action was taken. However, on 24.06.2007, complainant was again abused and beaten by the accused, named in the FIR, and such 2026:HHC:29453 7 incident was witnessed by two independent witnesses. He submitted that if the statements made by the material prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction, it cannot be said that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies, and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below while holding the accused guilty of their having committed the offence Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 11. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, attempted to argue that the mere making of casteist remarks is sufficient to hold the accused guilty under the aforesaid provisions of law. He submitted that since on 19.06.2007, accused used casteist remarks while giving beatings to the complainant and extended threats, Court below had no option but to hold accused guilty, as has been done in the case rightly. He further submitted that, otherwise, Court below while dealing with the case has not followed the procedure. He further submitted that preliminary evidence recorded at the time of summoning, as well as material incriminating evidence which was otherwise required to be put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, never came to be put. He submitted that though complainant, as well as his witnesses, had categorically stated with regard to the incident of 19.06.2007, but that has been not taken note of by the Court below while passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, and as such, matter is otherwise required to be remanded back. 2026:HHC:29453 8 12. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that Court below has proceeded to pass the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in hot- haste manner without appreciating the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, findings to the detriment of appellant-accused came to the fore. 13. If the private complaint lodged at the behest of the complainant is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that he had been working with one Ashwani Kumar, who appears to have some animosity with the appellant- accused No.1, who allegedly on account of his being Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Upper Pragpur, objected to illegal mining in Nakki Khad by Ashwani Kumar. Complainant has categorically admitted in the complaint, as well as in his statement recorded before the Court below, that he had been working with Ashwani Kumar, from whom appellant-accused No.1, Satish Patial, wanted to snatch leasing rights which Ashwani Kumar had actually got under permit for three years. 14. If the complaint filed under Section 3 of the Act is perused in its entirety, it further reveals that aforesaid Ashwani Kumar, who happens to be the employer of the complainant, had also some grouse with the appellant- accused No.2, Dhakkan Saini, who allegedly was working as a Munshi-cum- Clerk with the afore person and had failed to pay sum of ₹11,000/- collected on account of royalty. Interestingly, complainant in his complaint alleged 2026:HHC:29453 9 that on 19.06.2007, appellant-accused No.1, Satish Patial, abused him and used derogatory and defamatory language by calling him 'Julaha', and he also extended threats. There is no mention in the complaint that on 19.06.2007, while complainant was abused and extended threats, some other person was also present. He has also not mentioned the place of occurrence as well as time. He states that on 20.06.2007, he attempted to lodge a complaint at the Police Station, but the same was not recorded. No record with regard to the Police complaint ever came to be adduced on record. He also alleged that on 24.06.2007, SHO of the Police Station concerned asked him to compromise the matter, and he extended threats that in case he doesn't settle the matter with Satish Kumar, he would implicate him in a false case. However, no complaint, if any, in that regard ever came to be made by the complainant to the higher-ups. In same breath, he states that on 24.06.2007 at 9:00 PM, while he was coming from Upper Pragpur to Main Road Pragpur, Bani Road, accused came with the intention to kill him and stopped his tractor and started calling bad names. He claimed that aforesaid incident was witnessed by Arun Kumar (PW-2) and Vipin Kumar (PW-3), who rescued him from the clutches of accused. 15. If the evidence, which ultimately came to be led on record, is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that no evidence worth credence ever came to be led on record qua the alleged incident of hurling abuses and using casteist remarks on 19.06.2007. In complaint, there is no allegation that on 19.06.2007, complainant was given beatings by the accused, and such 2026:HHC:29453 10 incident was not witnessed by anyone. However, complainant while deposing before the Court below as PW-1, attempted to state that while he was being given beatings and hurled abuses, such incident was witnessed by PW-2 and PW-3, who allegedly objected to such behavior of appellant-accused No.1. 16. As has been taken note of hereinabove, in complaint, there is nothing that on 19.06.2007, apart from complainant and accused No.1, there was any third person present on the spot. Moreover, this Court finds that attempt has been made by prosecution to show that alleged incident of beatings as well as hurling abuses and using casteist remarks had happened on 24.06.2007, qua which no evidence has been led on record by complainant. Entire evidence led on record by the complainant is qua incident of 19.06.2007. Since there is nothing in complaint to suggest that on 19.06.2007, there was any third person to witness the incident, and on that day, appellant-accused had given beatings while hurling abuses and making casteist remarks, it is not understood that how and under what circumstances PW-2 and PW-3 could have witnessed such incident of that day. 17. Actually, accused himself has fallen in his trap. Firstly, he alleged that he was abused and hurled abuses on 19.06.2007, and thereafter he attempted to report the matter to Police but no action was taken. He alleged that on 24.06.2007, SHO of the Police Station concerned asked him to compromise. It is only after 24.06.2007, he concocted another story that on 24.06.2007 at 9:00 PM, while he was going towards Upper Prangpur, his 2026:HHC:29453 11 passage was obstructed by both the accused, and they gave him beatings and used casteist remarks. He also alleged that on that day, such incident was witnessed by PW-2 and PW-3. However, such allegation, if any, never came to be proved because complainant himself as well as material witnesses adduced on record, as indicated hereinabove, deposed before the Court below that on 19.06.2007, accused hurled abuses and used casteist remarks against complainant, and they, while giving beatings, also extended threats. 18. Since on 19.06.2007, as per own version of complainant, which is otherwise apparent from the complaint as well as his own statement given in competent Court of law under oath, PW-2 and PW-3 were not present on 19.06.2007, version put forth by these witnesses, including complainant, could not have been made basis by Court below while holding accused guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, rather, same should have been discarded, being totally false and contradictory. 19. Learned Court below, while appreciating the evidence adduced on record, completely ignored the complaint on the basis of which prosecution of complainant started. Needless to say, evidence, if any, was required to be led by complainant to prove the contents of complaint, however, in the instant case, as has been indicated hereinabove, entire evidence contrary to the contents of complaint, has been adduced on record. At the cost of repetition, it is once again noticed that though in complaint, complainant alleged that on 19.06.2007, accused No.1 used derogatory and defamatory 2026:HHC:29453 12 language by calling him 'Julaha' and also gave threats to kill him, but while stating so, he nowhere stated that such incident was witnessed by PW-2 and PW-3. 20. Similarly, he stated that on 20.06.2007, he reported the matter to Police, but no action was taken, however, copy of complaint, if any, made by him never came to be adduced on record. He alleged that on 24.06.2007, SHO asked him to compromise, whereafter, and interestingly as per complaint, on same day, i.e. 24.06.2007, accused stopped his passage and hurled abuses and made casteist remarks while giving beatings and such incident was witnessed by PW-2 and PW-3, who otherwise failed to state such fact while making deposition before the competent Court of law. Complainant himself as well as witnesses adduced by him on record nowhere stated anything specific with regard to incident of 24.06.2007. 21. No doubt minor contradictions and inconsistencies may not be fatal to the case of complainant, but once version put forth by witnesses with regard to mode and manner of committing alleged act and presence of some of the material complainant witnesses becomes doubtful, version put forth by them cannot be taken as a gospel truth, rather same is required to be considered very carefully. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 645, wherein it has been held as under:- “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evi- dence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless 2026:HHC:29453 13 to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686: 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) “ 14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy;..the pro- bative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fun- damental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated prin- ciple that “ no man is guilty until proven so,” hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are mul- tiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying be- fore the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evi- dence amongst all the witnesses.” 22. No doubt, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act provides for punishment in case casteist remarks are made by person of upper class to the person of lower class, but to hold guilty under such provision of law, allegation of making casteist remarks is required to be proved in accordance with law, which in the case at hand, admittedly complainant has been not able to prove, rather, having scanned entire evidence, this Court is compelled to conclude that there are material improvements, contradictions, and inconsistencies that too appears to have been made to concoct a false story. 2026:HHC:29453 14 23. Similarly, this Court is not in agreement with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, that preliminary evidence adduced on record at the time of summoning ought to have been taken into consideration by the Court below while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Needless to say, preliminary evidence is recorded solely for the purpose of summoning, and thereafter, parties are afforded opportunity to lead evidence. It is only on the basis of evidence led on record during trial which can be taken into consideration. 24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove and the law taken into consideration, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Court below is totally contrary to the evidence led on record, and as such, same cannot be permitted to sustain. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2010/30.03.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Private Complaint No.38-G/VII-2007, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The present appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge