Acquittal granted by Punjab high court charged under section 3 of the ST and SC Act,due to inadequate evidence produced by prosecution

TITLE: Rajbir Singh v State of Punjab   

Decided On-:June 7, 2023

CRA-S-2323-SB-2006 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.S Shekawat

INTRODUCTION- For the offense covered by Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, Rajbir Singh was found guilty. The accused prays for acquittal


The FIR in the present case was filed by Swaranjit Kaur, the wife of Caste Majhabi Sikh Baljit Singh, a resident of Bhagwanpura. She had three children and was married to Baljit Singh for 13 years, the complainant claimed. Both she and her husband were working manually. Around 8:00 p.m. on May 22, 2005, the complainant’s son Karampal Singh, who was about 10 years old, and she were crossing the street in front of Kaka Singh’s home to get milk from Bhikar Singh when they saw Rajbir Singh, the appellant, standing there while intoxicated. When he saw the complainant, he immediately started abusing her.

She went to get milk, but she didn’t say anything because she was afraid. Rajbir Singh, the appellant, met her in front of Kaka Singh’s house as she was walking back to her house. He called the complainant “chuhriya” and warned her and other “dheds” that if they failed to harm the Mazhabis, they would be expelled from the community. Rajbir Singh, the appellant, raised his shirt in front of the complainant and hurled crude insults at her despite her attempts to explain. She didn’t say a word as she and her son returned to their home.


Four witnesses were questioned by the prosecution to support the charge.

According to the FIR, Swaranjit Kaur, the complainant, who served as PW-1, was questioned in order to support the prosecution’s case. She claimed that Rajbir Singh met her as she was walking back from getting milk, close to Kaka Singh’s home. Rajbir Singh referred to her as “chuhri” and “dhedni” and demanded that she clean the dung from the cattle heads and trash at his house, but she refused. At the time, Rajbir Singh, the appellant, was intoxicated.

She asked the accused to keep quiet, but he spoke a lot before raising his shirt. Following the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, the appellant’s statement was recorded in accordance with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant claimed that he had been the victim of a planted case. No incident had occurred in the village, but rather, there was a dispute over Jumlan Malkan land between Harijans and the village’s farmers.

The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney vehemently argued that there is no evidence of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act against the current appellant. Since no one was present at the scene of the incident, it was impossible to confirm that it had actually happened. In a location that is “public view”. Aside from that, the prosecution did not present any other evidence.

“This Court finds sufficient force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a dispute relating to land between the members of the scheduled caste and the agriculturists of the village. The prosecution examined the complainant Swaranjit Kaur as PW-1. Even she was subjected to cross-examination and she was evasive in her replies, while she was cross-examined by the defense counsel.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view Judgement