Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal Rai Etc on 15 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW
DELHI
CNR no.DLST01-0090432017
Session Case No. 617/2017
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Kamal Rai and Ors.
FIR No. : 626/2015
Police Station : Sangam Vihar
Under Section : 354A/509 IPC and 3(1)(x)
SC/ST Act
Date of institution : 24.08.2017
Date on which arguments heard : 08.04.2026
Date of decision : 15.05.2026
Decision : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Kamal Rai and Priya Rai have been prose-
cuted in the present case for the offences punishable under Sec-
tions 354A/509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroc-
ities) Act, 1989.
2. The FIR in this case was registered on 02.10.2015 under
Sections 354/509 IPC on the basis of complaint Ex. PW1/A
lodged by the complainant Suman Kanti. In her complaint, the
complainant alleged that she was residing at J-III/99/06, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi and was a student of M.A. Previous. On
02.10.2015 at about 12:00 PM, she was present at her house
while her father was making preparations for construction of a
Digitally
signed by
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 1 of 38
Samar Samar
Date:
vishal
vishal 2026.05.15
16:23:32
+0530
‘chhajli’. At that time, a boy namely ‘VR’ (whose case is stated
to be pending separately before the Juvenile Justice Board) was
passing through the gali when some drops of water accidentally
fell upon him. On this, he started abusing the complainant’s fa-
ther. Hearing the commotion, the complainant came outside,
whereupon the said boy also started abusing her. It is alleged that
he assaulted the complainant on her chest and threatened that he
would not spare her. The said boy further abused the complainant
in vulgar language and tore her clothes. Upon the complainant
raising alarm and her father coming downstairs, the said boy fled
from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant immediately made a
call at 100 number and requested the police to take action against
the said boy.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation was taken up
and during the course of investigation, the statement of the com-
plainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the
learned Magistrate on 07.10.2015. The said statement assumes
significance as the complainant gave a detailed narration of the
incident in question and also referred to certain previous inci-
dents involving the accused persons and their family members. In
her statement, the complainant stated that on 02.10.2015 at about
12:00 noon, her father was preparing for sprinkling water on the
roof when VR, who was their neighbour, came out of his house
and some drops of water accidentally fell upon him. On this, VR
started abusing her father saying, “sale behen ke laude, tujhe
dikhta nahi main nikal ke ja raha hun”. Her father tried to pacify
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 2 of 38
Digitally signed
Samar by Samar vishal
Date:
vishal 2026.05.15
16:23:40 +0530
him by stating that the water might have fallen by mistake, how-
ever, VR continued abusing him. Hearing the commotion, the
complainant came outside and asked VR as to why he was abus-
ing her father and further stated that she would apologise on be-
half of her father. Upon this, VR abused her saying, “saali behen
ki lodi tujhe bhi abhi bata dunga.” When she questioned him re-
garding the abusive language, VR allegedly struck her hard on
her chest, pulled her clothes and tore her kurta from the front
side. Thereafter, he stated, “ruk ja tera baap aa raha hai.” The
complainant clarified that she did not know whether he was re-
ferring to his own father or the police.
4. The complainant further stated that thereafter
Priya Rai, the mother of VR, came there and also started abusing
her. According to the complainant, Priya Rai addressed her by us-
ing caste related slurs such as “Chuda-Chamar”. The complainant
stated that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. She im-
mediately called the police and by the time the police arrived, VR
had fled from the spot. She further stated that she, along with her
mother, father, uncle and her uncle’s daughter Pooja, remained at
the police station for about 12 hours and returned home at about
11:00 PM. She further alleged that on the next day i.e.
03.10.2015 at about 5:00-5:30 PM, when she had gone to the
roof for taking down clothes, accused Kamal Rai was standing in
his balcony and upon seeing her stated, “saali tune mere ladke ka
kuch karwa liya, ab tu dekh tere naam se ek-dedh lakh rupay
kharch karke rahunga.” Thereafter, he allegedly abused her say-
ing, “teri maa ki chut maroon” and further uttered, “saale Chamar
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 3 of 38
Digitally signed
Samar by Samar vishal
Date:
vishal 2026.05.15
16:23:50 +0530
ke Chamar hi rahenge.” The complainant further alleged that
thereafter Kamal Rai lowered his pants and showed his private
part to her. He also threatened that he would get her house sold
and would not permit her family to reside there. She further
stated that Kamal Rai used to consume liquor and sit outside his
house in the evening while hurling abuses.
5. The complainant further referred to an earlier
incident dated 11.03.2012 and stated that she had gone to the
house of her friend Rajni for calling her as they used to study to-
gether. At that time, Rajni’s brother Akhilesh allegedly came
from behind and placed one hand on her chest and another on her
private part. She stated that she pushed him away, slapped him
and ran from there. She did not disclose the incident to her family
members at that time as her brother was admitted in ICU and the
family was already under stress. According to the complainant,
after about one to one and a half months, she attempted to narrate
the incident to Rajni, however, Rajni requested her not to dis-
close the incident to her family members and assured her that she
would explain the matter to Akhilesh. Rajni allegedly also threat-
ened that if the matter was disclosed, they would implicate her
brothers in a false case. The complainant stated that she later in-
formed her mother about the incident and when Rajni’s mother
came to know about the same, a Panchayat was called on
26.01.2013 with the intention to insult her and her father. How-
ever, her father instead went to the police station for lodging a
complaint and she accompanied him there. She further alleged
that Vijay (Pradhan), Komal, Rajni, the mother of Akhilesh and
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 4 of 38
2-3 other persons reached the police station and pressurised them
into a compromise.
6. The complainant further stated that after about one
or two months, Brijesh, younger brother of Akhilesh, stood out-
side her house and started calling her his “Bhabhi”. When she
came outside and questioned him, he allegedly abused her and
pulled her hair. Thereafter, Rajni and Akhilesh also came there
and started beating her. When her mother intervened, Akhilesh
allegedly kicked her mother due to which she fell into the drain.
Her sister attempted to rescue her, however, Brijesh and Rajni
also assaulted her. The complainant stated that she called the po-
lice and Akhilesh continued abusing her even in the presence of
police officials. She further stated that two persons namely Gau-
tam Uncle and Panna Lal Uncle, who resided in the same gali,
advised that girls should not visit the police station at night. Ac-
cording to her, Rajni’s parents thereafter got an old injury in Ra-
jni’s ear medically treated and falsely claimed that the same had
been caused by them and due to such pressure, they were pre-
vented from pursuing their complaint. She further stated that an-
other Panchayat was thereafter convened outside her house and
they were again compelled to enter into a compromise.
7. The complainant further alleged that owing to previ-
ous disputes with Rajni and her family members, Priya Rai sided
with them and started running a tuition centre from Akhilesh’s
house for teaching her son. According to the complainant, chil-
dren used to come there at about 6:30 AM and as their own house
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 5 of 38
Digitally signed
Samar by Samar vishal
Date:
vishal 2026.05.15
16:23:58 +0530
measured only about 35 square yards, she used to study on the
roof. She alleged that boys attending the tuition classes used to
harass her, throw pens towards her and abuse her. She further al-
leged that one Anil Kumar, who used to teach at the tuition centre
and was residing on the first floor of Akhilesh’s house as a
tenant, used to roam around in his underwear. Since there was al-
legedly no wall between the houses except a boundary line,
everything was visible from one house to another. She further
alleged that Akhilesh used to take advantage of the absence of a
wall and used to make objectionable gestures towards her.
According to her, when her father attempted to construct a wall,
VR’s mother started quarrelling with them and VR also abused
her father. When her brother questioned VR regarding the abuses,
VR’s mother allegedly stated, “main Dakshinpuri ki rahne wali
hun aur main chakuon se wo haal karaungi ki tu yaad rakhega.”
The complainant further alleged that on one occasion, VR had
also caught hold of her uncle’s daughter Pooja from behind in the
street.
8. After completion of investigation, the investigating
agency filed the charge-sheet against accused Priya Rai, Kamal
Rai and VR. During the pendency of proceedings, a plea of juve-
nility was raised on behalf of VR. Upon inquiry, vide order dated
31.10.2017, VR was declared to be a child in conflict with law
and consequently, his trial was separated from the present case
and transferred to the learned Juvenile Justice Board for adjudi-
cation in accordance with law.
DigitallySC No. 617/2017 signed State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 6 of 38 Samar by Samar vishal Date: vishal 2026.05.15 16:24:05 +0530
9. Charge against accused Kamal Rai was framed on
22.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 354A/509
IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Charge against ac-
cused Priya Rai was framed on 11.03.2022 for the offence pun-
ishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Sched-
uled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Both the ac-
cused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove its case against the accused per-
sons, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all. The com-
plainant Suman Kanti was examined as PW-1 and being the vic-
tim herself, she is the principal witness of the prosecution case.
PW-2 Gajadhar, father of the complainant, and PW-3 Raghunan-
dan, uncle of the complainant, were examined as material wit-
nesses to the occurrence in question. The prosecution further ex-
amined PW-4 Ram Singh, PW-5 Raj Kumar and PW-6 Smt. Sun-
dari as public witnesses to corroborate the prosecution version.
The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were po-
lice officials connected with the investigation of the case, who
deposed regarding the various investigative steps undertaken dur-
ing the course of investigation and proved the relevant docu-
ments prepared in that regard.
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, both the
accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
Samar wherein all incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing
vishal against them in the prosecution case were put to them. Both the
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 7 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:24:10 +0530
accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.
They stated that the present case had been lodged as a coun-
terblast to a case instituted by accused Priya Rai against Gajadhar
and Raghunandan, who are prosecution witnesses in the present
matter, under Sections 354/509/34 IPC with respect to the same
incident dated 02.10.2015.
12. Accused Kamal Rai stated that he was not present at
the spot on 03.10.2015, as alleged by the complainant, and
claimed that he used to leave his house at about 8:00 AM daily
for work at Safdarjung Enclave. Accused Priya Rai stated that her
son was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident
dated 02.10.2015 and further asserted that her husband Kamal
Rai was also not present at the place of occurrence on
03.10.2015, as alleged by the complainant. The accused persons
did not lead any evidence in their defence.
13. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence led in
this case. The case is based on the evidence of eye witnesses. The
prosecution has numerous public witnesses out of which the
complainant and her father Gajadhar are important eye witnesses.
A witness who has personally seen the occurrence of the incident
under inquiry is regarded as an eyewitness. The testimony of an
eyewitness, if found to be credible and trustworthy, carries signif-
icant evidentiary value and cannot be discarded without cogent
reasons. It is well settled that a conviction can be sustained on the
basis of the sole testimony of an eyewitness, provided it inspires
full confidence of the court. However, if the testimony is found to
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 8 of 38
be partly unreliable or doubtful, the court may prudently seek in-
dependent corroboration to ensure the truthfulness of the prose-
cution case.
14. Eyewitnesses play an important role in the criminal
justice system. The quality of evidence of an eyewitness depends
on many factors prominent among them are his view in which the
crime is committed, his confidence with respect to the accuracy
of the description of the crime and identification of the accused
and his description, the amount of attention the witness paid to
the crime during its occurrence, the probability of the witness
being present at the place of incident, the accuracy and probabil-
ity of what he is defining etc. The law related to the appreciation
of evidence of eyewitnesses is completely settled that generally
the testimony of eyewitness of the incident is considered credible
unless and until it is specifically shown or proved to have a taint
for any reason on which it is assailed. Generally, the courts tend
to believe what the eyewitnesses depose in the court and it is
only when there exists grave and material discrepancies and
contradictions in their statements which compels the court to
think and doubt that whether the eyewitness is giving a truthful
account, it can come in the domain of suspicion. When the
tenacity and doggedness of the eyewitness is suspicious, when
the truthfulness of the testimony of the eyewitness is shrouded in
grave clouds of suspicion and falsity, the court may disbelieve
that witness or may look for such corroboration of his evidence
which are capable of removing the blemish from his evidence.
Samar
vishal
Digitally signed by SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 9 of 38
Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:24:18 +0530
However, the contradictions and omissions which are not mate-
rial regards being to the facts of the case, those can be over-
looked. The testimony of a victim of an offence also stands on
the same footing. In Ganesan Vs. State (2020) 10 SCC 573, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sole testimony of the vic-
tim, if found worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corrob-
oration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused.
15. Now with these legal parameters regarding apprecia-
tion of evidence of eyewitness and being conscious of the fact
that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is always on the prose-
cution and it never shifts and to secure a conviction, the prosecu-
tion has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of
acceptable evidence. Though it is neither possible nor prudent to
have a straight-jacket formula or principle which would apply to
all cases without variance and every case has to be appreciated
on its own facts and in light of the evidence led by the parties. It
is for the court to examine the cumulative effect of the evidence
in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
16. On the basis of above factual and legal position, I
have undertaken a careful evaluation of the entire material placed
on record, guided by the settled principles governing criminal ju-
Samar risprudence. In a criminal trial, the burden lies squarely upon the
vishal prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 10 of 38
Date:
2026.05.15
16:24:24 +0530
therefore scrutinised the testimonies of witnesses, the documen-
tary and electronic materials, the forensic report, and the exami-
nation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., keeping in mind
that the gravity of allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act requires strict adherence to the statutory ingredi-
ents of the offence. At the very outset, the status of the com-
plainant and her father as members of the Scheduled Caste com-
munity is not in dispute. Their caste certificates, duly seized and
proved during trial, were also verified by the Investigating Offi-
cer from the issuing authorities. The defence has not challenged
their authenticity and in fact admitted the copy of the cast certifi-
cates of both of them, which areExPA4 and ExPA5. Thus, the
first factual foundation necessary for attracting Sections 3(1)(x)
of the SC/ST Act that is that the victims belongs to Scheduled
Castes category clearly stands established.
17. Coming now to the evidence of the witnesses of the
prosecution. PW-1 Suman Kanti, the complainant and victim her-
self, entered the witness box and deposed that at the relevant time
she was residing at her parental house bearing no. J-3/99, Gali
No. 6, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and was pursuing M.A. (Eng-
lish) from IGNOU. She deposed that on 02.10.2015 at about
11:30 AM, her father was pouring water on the newly plastered
portion of the first floor of their house when a few drops of water
accidentally fell upon VR (CCL), who was their neighbour and
was passing through the gali. According to the witness, VR got
Samar enraged and started abusing her father in filthy language by say-
vishal ing, “saale bhenchod tujhe dikhai nahi deta, behen ke lode, dekh
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 11 of 38
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal
Date:
2026.05.15
16:24:31 +0530
ke toh pani daal, main nikal ke ja raha hoon, tujhe dikhai nahi
deta.” Her father tried to pacify him by stating that the water
might have fallen by mistake. Upon hearing the commotion, she
came outside and asked VR as to why he was abusing them and
also apologised on behalf of her father. However, VR allegedly
abused her by saying, “behen ki lodi aaj tujhe nahi chorunga, ab
ruk ab tera baap aa raha hoga toh tujhe batayega.” She further de-
posed that when she questioned him regarding the abuses, VR
struck her on her breasts (“seene pe haath mara”) and pulled her
kurta by holding its collar, due to which the kurta got torn from
the front side. She raised alarm by shouting “papa bachao”,
whereafter her father came outside and VR fled from the spot.
18. PW-1 further deposed that she heard the sound of
beating on the door from inside the house of VR and thereafter
VR immediately entered his house and opened the gate. She
stated that Priya Rai, mother of VR and whom she identified in
court, came outside and after being informed by VR about the
dripping of water, started abusing and quarrelling with her. Ac-
cording to PW-1, accused Priya Rai stated, “tujhe jeena haram
kar dungi, tujhe gali mein nahi rahne dungi, chamar ko chauanni
mili hai to uchalne lage hain” and also addressed her and her fa-
ther as “chure chamar” in the presence of several persons present
in the gali. She further stated that Priya Rai also said, “randi tera
wo haal karungi ki tu yaad rakhegi.” PW-1 deposed that she im-
mediately called the police at 100 number and before the arrival
of police, VR fled from the spot. She narrated the incident to the
police officials and was taken to the police station along with her
Samar
vishal SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 12 of 38
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:24:36 +0530
parents, uncle, cousin and accused Priya Rai. She remained in the
police station for about twelve hours and her written complaint
Ex.PW1/A was recorded in the evening.
19. PW-1 further deposed that on 03.10.2015 at about
5:30 PM, when she had gone upstairs to collect dried clothes, ac-
cused Kamal Rai, who was standing on the chajja, started saying,
“saali, tune mere ladke ka kya karwa liya, ab dekh tere naam par
1-1.5 lakh kharch kar dunga.” She further deposed that Kamal
Rai also uttered, “dedh chamar dedh chamar hi rahoge” and fur-
ther abused her saying, “teri maa ki chut phadu, tum logon ko
yahan se bhaga ke chorunga.” According to PW-1, accused Ka-
mal Rai thereafter removed his pant and flashed his penis at her.
He also threatened her by stating, “tera ghar bikwa kar manenge.
Yahan rehna mushkil kar denge.” She immediately collected the
clothes and came downstairs and informed her father about the
incident. Thereafter, she and her father went to the police station,
however, the police officials told them that since the FIR had al-
ready been registered, she could narrate the subsequent incident
before the Court during recording of her statement.
20. The witness further deposed regarding previous inci-
dents between the families. She stated that on 11.03.2012 she had
gone to the house of her friend Rajni to collect her pen, where
Rajni’s brother Akhilesh grabbed her from behind, placed one
hand on her breasts and another on her private parts. She slapped
Samarhim and escaped from there but did not disclose the incident im-
vishal mediately as her younger brother was admitted in ICU and her
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 13 of 38
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:24:41 +0530
Class XII examinations were also going on. She further stated
that after about one to one and a half months she disclosed the in-
cident to Rajni, who requested her not to disclose the same to her
family members and threatened that if she disclosed the incident,
all her five brothers would be implicated in a molestation case.
She further deposed that when her family members eventually
came to know about the incident, they went to the police station
on 26.01.2013 where Akhilesh along with his relatives and one
Vijay Pradhan came and pressurised them not to lodge any com-
plaint.
21. PW-1 further deposed that after one or two months,
Brijesh, younger brother of Akhilesh, started referring to her as
his “personal bhabhi” while pointing towards her from the ter-
race. On 06.03.2013, when she objected to such conduct, Brijesh
abused her saying, “saali, abhi ruk abhi tujhe batata hun” and
thereafter called Akhilesh and Rajni. She deposed that Akhilesh
caught hold of her hair and gave fist blows on her stomach, Bri-
jesh slapped her and Rajni held her hands. All three allegedly
made her fall on the ground and assaulted her. Her mother and el-
der sister came to rescue her, whereafter Akhilesh also assaulted
her sister. According to the witness, police officials arrived at the
spot and even in the presence of police, Akhilesh abused her say-
ing, “jo ab tak nahi kiya ab tere sath karunga.” She further de-
posed that on the next day, when she and her family members
visited the police station, they were pressurised into a compro-
mise.
Samar
vishal
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 14 of 38
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:24:47 +0530
22. PW-1 further stated that accused Priya Rai had
helped one Anil Kumar, stated to be her relative, in obtaining
rented accommodation at the house of Akhilesh and that Anil Ku-
mar started conducting tuition classes there. According to her,
students at the tuition centre used to stare at her while she used
the bathroom and toilet in the morning and also used to throw
pens into her house and abuse her. She further stated that Anil
Kumar used to roam around on the terrace wearing only under-
wear. When her mother objected to such conduct, accused Priya
Rai and Rupa Devi came to their house and quarrelled with them.
She further deposed that when her father attempted to raise a wall
between the houses, VR started abusing her father and accused
Priya Rai threatened her by saying, “mai Dakshinpuri ki rhene
wali hoon aur mai chakuon se marwaungi.”
23. The witness further deposed that on 28.08.2014,
when her father started construction of the second floor, accused
Priya Rai, VR and Rupa Devi started quarrelling with them from
the terrace and Priya Rai abused her father by saying, “kaliye tu
ghar banakar dikha, tera ghar nahi banne doongi. Bhadwe, tujhe
yahan se bhaga ke chhodugi.” She further deposed that on
23.02.2015, when her cousin sister Pooja was returning from the
market, VR misbehaved with her (“CCL ‘VR’ ne meri behen ko
peche se cheda thha”). When her uncle questioned Kamal Rai re-
garding the incident, Kamal Rai allegedly brought a knife, VR
brought a sariya and accused Priya Rai also came there and all of
Samarthem threatened and abused them saying, “iss ladki ko bahar
vishalnikalo, hum puchate hai, isko kya kiya hai.” Police was thereafter
Digitally signed
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 15 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:24:52 +0530
called at the spot and the accused persons were taken to the po-
lice station.
24. PW-1 further proved her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW1/B (colly.), seizure memo of her
torn kurta as Ex. PW1/C, seizure memo of caste certificate as Ex.
PW1/D and identified the torn kurta Ex. P1. She also proved her
caste certificate Ex. PW1/E.
25. During her cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that in
her written complaint Ex. PW1/A she had not mentioned the
casteist remarks allegedly made by accused Kamal Rai and Priya
Rai and volunteered that the police officials did not permit her to
mention the same in the complaint and had told her that such al-
legations could be mentioned before the Court. She further ad-
mitted that she had not made any separate written complaint re-
garding the incident dated 03.10.2015 and had not made any
PCR call on 03.10.2015 or 04.10.2015. She also admitted that the
incidents dated 11.03.2012, 06.03.2013, 28.08.2014 and
23.02.2015 were not mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A
though she maintained that such incidents had in fact occurred
and had been mentioned in her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
26. PW-1 further admitted that on the complaint of ac-
cused Priya Rai, FIR No. 627/2015 under Sections 354/506/509
IPC had been registered against her father Gajadhar and uncle
Samar Raghunandan and that another FIR No. 374/2017 under Sections
vishal 323/354/452/341/506/509/34 IPC had also been registered
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 16 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:24:58 +0530
against her, her sister, father and brothers on the complaint of ac-
cused Priya Rai. However, she denied the suggestion that the
present case was a counterblast to the said cases. She denied all
suggestions put to her that no such incidents had taken place and
maintained that accused Priya Rai had uttered the casteist re-
marks “chure chamar” and accused Kamal Rai had uttered the
words “dedh chamar dedh chamar hi rahoge”, flashed his penis at
her and threatened her as alleged. She further denied the sugges-
tion that she had falsely implicated the accused persons due to
previous enmity or to pressurise them to vacate their house.
27. PW-2 is the father of the complainant. He deposed
that he is 12th pass and works as a raj mistri. He stated that he
had been residing at the aforesaid address since the year 1994.
He further deposed that on 02.10.2015 at about 11:30 AM, he
was present on the first floor of his house and was pouring water
on the newly plastered balcony portion. According to him, a few
drops of water might inadvertently have fallen down in the street
below. At that time, CCL ‘V’, who was passing through the gali,
came into contact with the water droplets and immediately be-
came enraged. PW-2 stated that CCL ‘V’ started abusing him by
saying, “behen ke lode, mere upar pani gira diya, dikhayi nahi
deta”. He further stated that CCL ‘V’ threatened him by saying,
“abhi tera baap aayega tab batayega aa ke” and also uttered caste-
based remarks, saying, “ab yahan se chure chamar ko bhaga kar
chhodunga”.
Samar28. PW-2 further deposed that upon hearing the commo-
vishal
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 17 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:25:04 +0530
tion and abuses, his daughter Suman Kanti came outside into the
gali and questioned CCL ‘V’ as to why he was abusing her father.
Thereupon, CCL ‘V’ started abusing his daughter in filthy lan-
guage by saying, “behen ke lodi, kutiya, chamariya, tu kyon boli
beech mein”. PW-2 further stated that CCL ‘V’ removed both his
shoes, pointed them towards his daughter and threatened her by
saying, “abhi tere gaal jutiyon se saaf karunga” . He further de-
posed that thereafter CCL ‘V’ pressed/grabbed the breast of his
daughter while saying, “aaj tujhe chhodunga nahin”, due to
which her kurti got torn from the front side.
29. PW-2 stated that at the relevant time he was still
standing on the first floor and thereafter his daughter called him
downstairs. He further stated that while he was coming outside
the house, his elder daughter Sangmitra and his wife had latched
the door from inside. He further deposed that the main gate of the
house of accused Priya Rai was locked from outside, as CCL ‘V’
used to lock the gate whenever he came out. According to PW-2,
accused Priya Rai banged the gate from inside, whereupon CCL
‘V’ opened the lock from outside and accused Priya Rai came out
into the gali.
30. PW-2 further stated that his brother Raghunandan
also reached the spot and thereafter heated exchanges took place
between accused Priya Rai and his brother. He deposed that ac-
cused Priya Rai abused his brother by saying, “apni betiyon ko
Samar chod le”. He further stated that accused Priya Rai uttered casteist
vishal remarks by saying, “inn chamaron ko chawanni mil gayi hai toh
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 18 of 38
Date:
2026.05.15
16:25:12 +0530
uchhalne lage hain, main inka jeena haram kar dungi, main inki
parchai se bachti hoon, main iska makaan bikwakar chhodungi”.
31. PW-2 further deposed that thereafter his daughter
Suman Kanti made a call at 100 number and the police reached
the spot. According to him, the police took him, his wife and his
daughter to PS Sangam Vihar, but initially neither their state-
ments were recorded nor any complaint was lodged. He stated
that later, at about 11:30 PM on the same day, the statement of
his daughter Suman Kanti was recorded. PW-2 further stated that
the police did not record the caste-related abuses in the complaint
and told them that recording of such allegations was not their
duty and the same pertained to the ACP concerned.
32. PW-2 further deposed that on the next day i.e.
03.10.2015 at about 05:00 PM, accused Kamal Rai, identified by
the witness in Court, addressed his daughter Suman Kanti regard-
ing the previous day’s incident involving his son CCL ‘V’. Ac-
cording to PW-2, accused Kamal Rai abused his daughter by say-
ing, “behen ke lodi” and also exposed his private part to her.
PW-2 further stated that accused Kamal Rai uttered casteist re-
marks by saying, “dedh chamar yahan nahin rehne dunga,
makaan bikwakar chhodenge”.
33. PW-2 further deposed that on 04.10.2015 he again
visited PS Sangam Vihar along with his daughter Suman Kanti,
but the police refused to register any further complaint on the
Samar ground that a complaint had already been lodged on 02.10.2015
vishal and advised that whatever additional facts were to be stated could
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 19 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date:
2026.05.15
16:25:21 +0530
be narrated before the Magistrate at the time of recording of
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further stated that the IO
later recorded his statement during investigation.
34. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that at the
time of the incident only he, his wife and his two daughters,
namely Suman Kanti and Sangmitra, were present in the house
and none of his sons were present there. He denied the sugges-
tion that his sons were also present since it was a public holiday.
He stated that his daughter made the PCR call between 11:30 AM
and 12:00 noon and the police arrived within 2-3 minutes.
35. PW-2 admitted that several facts stated by him in
Court, including the exact casteist abuses and threats allegedly
uttered by CCL ‘V’ and accused Priya Rai, were not specifically
recorded in his police statement Ex. PW2/DA, though he volun-
teered that he had narrated the same to the police. He was con-
fronted with portions of Ex. PW2/DA where such facts were not
found recorded. These included the allegations that CCL ‘V’ had
stated “ab yahan se chure chamar ko bhaga kar chhodunga”, that
he abused Suman Kanti by calling her “behen ke lodi, kutiya,
chamariya”, that he threatened to clean her face with shoes, and
that accused Priya Rai had uttered the words ” main inka jeena
haram kar dungi, main inki parchai se bachti hoon, main iska
makaan bikwakar chhodungi”.
36. PW-2 further admitted that the allegations regarding
accused Kamal Rai exposing his private part and uttering casteist
Digitally
signed by
Samar
Samar vishal
Date: SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 20 of 38
vishal 2026.05.15
16:25:40
+0530
abuses on 03.10.2015 were also not found specifically recorded
in Ex. PW2/DA.
37. PW-3 Raghunandan, who is the uncle of the com-
plainant Suman Kanti, deposed that on 02.10.2015 at about
10:30-11:00 AM, while he was present at his house along with
his friend Raj Kumar, he heard noise coming from the backside
of the house. When he came outside along with Raj Kumar, he
saw accused Priya Rai and juvenile ‘V’ abusing his niece Suman
Kanti by uttering the words “chamaro ko chawani mil gayi hain
toh uchalne lage hain.” He stated that when he objected to the
same, accused Priya Rai threatened that she would make their life
miserable and get their house sold. He further alleged that juve-
nile ‘VR’ also uttered casteist abuses against him and his family
members. According to him, thereafter Suman Kanti made a call
at 100 number and the police reached at the spot. He further
stated that the police took Gajadhar, Suman Kanti and his bhabhi
to the police station where a complaint was lodged. He also
stated that later on the investigation officer inquired from him
during investigation.
38. In his cross-examination, PW-3 admitted several
omissions and improvements vis-Ã -vis his police statement Ex.
PW3/DA. He admitted that it was not recorded in his police
statement that he had heard noise from the backside of the house
at about 10:30-11:00 AM. He was confronted with Ex. PW3/DA
regarding the allegation that juvenile ‘V’ had uttered the casteist
Samar
remarks “chure chamaro ko chawani mil gayi hain toh uchalne
vishal
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 21 of 38
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal
Date:
2026.05.15
16:25:44 +0530
lage hain,” but the same was not found recorded therein. Like-
wise, he admitted that the allegation that accused Priya Rai had
threatened by saying “main jeena haram kar dungi, makaan
bikwa dungi” was also not recorded in his previous statement.
39. PW-3 was further confronted with his police state-
ment regarding his assertions that Suman Kanti had called the
police at 100 number and that the police had taken Gajadhar,
Suman Kanti and his bhabhi to the police station, but these facts
too were not found mentioned in Ex. PW3/DA. He admitted that
when juvenile ‘V’ was allegedly hurling abuses to his niece, he
himself was not present there. He also admitted that accused
Priya Rai had lodged FIR No. 627/2015 under Sections
354/341/506/509/34 IPC against him and his brother Gajadhar
and that the said case was pending trial.
40. PW-4 Ram Singh, an independent neighbour resid-
ing in the same locality, deposed that on 02.10.2015 at about
10:30 AM he was standing outside his house when he saw juve-
nile ‘V’ abusing the daughter of Gajadhar in filthy language. He
further stated that accused Priya Rai also reached there and
abused the complainant by saying, “tumhara baap aayega,
chamaro ko chawani mil gayi hain toh uchalne lage hain, main
isko bhaga ke chodugi yahan se.” According to him, thereafter he
left the spot. He also stated that he did not remember the exact
date when the police met him regarding the incident since the
Samarmatter was old.
vishal
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 22 of 38
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:25:51 +0530
41. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that the spot
of incident was at a distance of about 10 meters from the place
where he was standing. He admitted that none of his family
members came to the spot during the incident. He further stated
that he was not carrying a mobile phone at the relevant time and
that he himself did not call the police. He stated that the com-
plainant had called at 100 number and that the police reached the
spot after about 30 minutes to one hour. He further deposed that
the police had recorded his statement only once and that he had
informed the police that he belonged to Jatav caste.
42. PW-4 also admitted in cross-examination that he was
aware of the criminal case pending against Ragunandan and Ga-
jadhar on the complaint of accused Priya Rai in relation to the
same incident dated 02.10.2015. He denied the defence sugges-
tion that Ragunandan and Gajadhar had abused accused Priya Rai
or that Ragunandan had threatened her by saying “iske neche se
chaku ghusa do.” He further denied the suggestion that no such
incident had taken place or that he was deposing falsely at the in-
stance of the complainant party.
43. The testimony of PW-4 assumes significance as he is
projected as an independent witness from the neighbourhood. His
deposition corroborates the complainant to the extent that ac-
cused Priya Rai and juvenile ‘V’ were allegedly abusing the com-
plainant and uttering caste-related remarks in public view. How-
ever, it is pertinent to note that PW-4 did not depose regarding
Samar any allegation of molestation or tearing of clothes by juvenile
vishal
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 23 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:25:58 +0530
‘V’. His testimony is confined mainly to the alleged verbal
abuses and casteist remarks. Further, though he supported the
prosecution version, the admitted pendency of cross-litigation be-
tween the parties and the absence of any other independent cor-
roboration are circumstances that would require cautious appreci-
ation of his evidence.
44. PW-5 Raj Kumar deposed that on 02.10.2015 he had
gone to the house of Raghunandan at Sangam Vihar and at about
10:30 AM, when he was leaving for the house of his sister, he no-
ticed a quarrel taking place between Gajadhar and juvenile ‘V’.
According to him, juvenile ‘V’ was abusing Gajadhar and his
daughter in filthy language and uttered the words, “behen chod
teri haramjadi, yeh chamar ko chawani mil gayi toh jyada
uchalne lage hain.” He further stated that thereafter he left the
spot. Initially, PW-5 stated that the police had neither inquired
from him regarding the incident nor recorded his statement.
45. Since the witness did not disclose all material facts,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to put
leading questions, which was allowed by the Court. In response
thereto, PW-5 admitted that accused Priya Rai had also reached
the spot and abused the daughter of Gajadhar by saying, “chamar
ko chawani mil gayi hain isliye uchalne laga hain, yahan se
bhaga kar chodugi.”
46. During cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he knew
Raghunandan since the year 1996 and had reached his house at
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 24 of 38
about 10:15 AM on the day of incident. He stated that when juve-
nile ‘V’ was abusing the complainant side, he had asked Raghu-
nandan about his name and thereafter came to know that his
name was ‘V’. He further deposed that he was not carrying a mo-
bile phone at the relevant time and could not say whether any-
body had called the police at number 100.
47. Significantly, PW-5 contradicted his examination-in-
chief by stating in cross-examination that the police had in fact
recorded his statement in the police station on the next day of the
incident in the presence of Gajadhar. He also admitted that he
had not stated to the police in his statement that juvenile ‘V’ had
hurled the aforesaid casteist abuses to the complainant. He de-
nied the defence suggestion that juvenile ‘V’ was not present at
the spot or that accused Priya Rai had not uttered casteist re-
marks. He further denied the suggestion that no incident had
taken place or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of
Raghunandan and Gajadhar.
48. PW-6 Smt. Sundari, a neighbour residing in the
same locality, deposed that she did not remember the exact date
of the incident but stated that in the month of December 2015, at
about 11:00 AM, Gajadhar was pouring water on his roof/chajja
and some drops of water accidentally fell upon juvenile ‘V’. Ac-
cording to her, thereafter juvenile ‘V’ started abusing Gajadhar in
filthy language and also stated, “tera baap aayega toh wo
Samar batayega.” She further deposed that accused Priya Rai also came
vishal there and abused Gajadhar by saying, “bhadwe tujhe rehne nahi
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 25 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:26:02 +0530
dungi, tujhe rehne nahi dungi, mil gayi chawani chamar ko toh
uchalne lage hai.” She further stated that accused Priya Rai had
made a complaint to the police, after which police reached the
spot and took some persons to the police station, though she
stated that she did not know who exactly had been taken. She
also stated that she did not know who had first made the com-
plaint to the police. Initially, PW-6 stated that the police had not
inquired from her regarding the present case.
49. Since the witness did not disclose the correct date of
incident, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission
to put leading questions, which was allowed. In response thereto,
PW-6 admitted that the incident had in fact taken place on
02.10.2015.
50. During her cross-examination, PW-6 stated that at
the relevant time she was alone at her house, while her husband
had gone to work and her children had gone to school. She stated
that her house was situated about three houses away from the
spot of occurrence and voluntarily clarified that Gajadhar’s house
number was 99 whereas her own house number was 101. She
further stated that she was not carrying a mobile phone at the rel-
evant time and did not know whether anybody had made a call at
number 100. She also stated that accused Priya Rai came to the
spot immediately after hearing the noise raised by juvenile ‘V’.
PW-6 admitted that the police had not recorded her statement.
Samar
vishal 51. She denied the defence suggestions that juvenile ‘V’
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 26 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date:
2026.05.15
16:26:07 +0530
was not present at the spot or that accused Priya Rai had not ut-
tered casteist remarks against Gajadhar and his family members.
She also denied the suggestion that the accused persons had been
falsely implicated at the instance of Gajadhar and his daughter.
52. PW-7 SI Manoj Kumar was the formal witness from
the PCR branch. He deposed that on 02.10.2015, while posted at
CPCR, PHQ, Delhi, a PCR call was received at about 11:54 AM,
which was automatically generated in the system. He proved the
PCR form as Ex. PW7/A. In his cross-examination, he stated that
he did not remember whether the caller had disclosed his or her
name while making the call. He further stated that immediately
upon receipt of the call, he had entered the information into the
system. His testimony is formal in nature and merely establishes
that a PCR call regarding the incident was received on the rele-
vant date and time.
53. PW-8 Inspector Saurabh Kumar deposed that on
02.12.2015, while posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Sangam Vihar,
the present case file was handed over to him for further investiga-
tion. He stated that he visited the house of the complainant and
made inquiries from her, but according to him, the complainant
stated that she had already made her complaint and her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had already been recorded. He further
deposed that upon going through the file he found allegations un-
der the SC/ST Act and accordingly issued notice under Section
Samar 91 Cr.P.C. to the complainant for production of her caste certifi-
vishal cate. The complainant thereafter produced her caste certificate,
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 27 of 38
Date: 2026.05.15
16:26:12 +0530
which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D. He further stated
that he obtained the PCR form from the control room and moved
a request before the DCP for transfer of the case to the concerned
ACP as allegations under the SC/ST Act had emerged.
54. In his cross-examination, PW-8 admitted that he did
not remember the exact date on which he visited the com-
plainant’s house, nor did he remember who accompanied him.
He further admitted that he did not record the statement of any
public witness and that he had not visited the spot of incident
during his investigation.
55. PW-9 ACP Amit Kaushik deposed that on
27.06.2016, while posted as ACP Ambedkar Nagar, further inves-
tigation of the present case was assigned to him and after perusal
of the case file, Section 3 of the SC/ST Act was added. He stated
that on 17.07.2016 and again on 07.09.2016, he made efforts to
trace independent witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case
but was unsuccessful. He further deposed that on 14.10.2016,
complainant side witnesses namely Gajadhar, Raghunandan,
Ram Singh, Sundari and Raj Kumar appeared in his office and
their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
56. PW-9 further stated that on 20.11.2016, juvenile
‘VR’ and accused Priya Rai joined investigation and were inter-
rogated by him. According to him, accused Priya Rai informed
him that she had already lodged an FIR against Gajadhar and his
family members regarding her alleged molestation. He also stated
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 28 of 38
that both accused Priya Rai and juvenile ‘VR’ took the plea of al-
ibi and claimed that juvenile ‘VR’ was present at his maternal un-
cle’s house at Dakshinpuri at the relevant time. He admitted that
no separate interrogation report was prepared and that the version
of the juvenile in conflict with law was not placed on record.
57. In cross-examination, PW-9 admitted that FIR No.
627/2015 had indeed been registered on the complaint of accused
Priya Rai against the complainant side regarding the incident of
the same day. He further admitted that while visiting the spot he
met some neighbours and passersby but did not note down their
names and addresses as they allegedly refused to disclose the
same. Thus, the testimony of PW-9 reveals that although the in-
vestigating agency attempted to locate independent witnesses, no
such truly independent witness from the locality was ultimately
associated during investigation apart from those supporting the
complainant side.
58. PW-10 SI Vineet Pratap Singh was the initial Inves-
tigating Officer after registration of FIR. He deposed that on
02.10.2015, after registration of the FIR, further investigation
was entrusted to him. He stated that he collected the FIR and
rukka, visited the spot situated in front of House No. J-3/99, Gali
No. 6, Sangam Vihar and met complainant Suman Kanti there.
According to him, the complainant pointed out the place of oc-
currence and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW10/B at her in-
stance.
Samar
vishal
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 29 of 38
Digitally signed by
Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:26:17 +0530
59. PW-10 further deposed that the complainant handed
over her torn kurta, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW1/C after preparing a sealed pullanda bearing seal
“SGV10SED”. He also recorded the supplementary statement of
the complainant. He further stated that on 07.10.2015 he moved
an application Ex. PW10/C before the Court for recording of
statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
60. In cross-examination, PW-10 admitted that he vis-
ited the spot at about 11:00 PM on 02.10.2015 and that apart
from the complainant and her family members, no public person
was found present there. He further admitted that he did not
make any effort to search for CCTV cameras installed near the
spot. He also admitted that he never revisited the spot after the
said date. His testimony primarily establishes the procedural
steps undertaken during the initial stage of investigation includ-
ing preparation of site plan, seizure of torn kurta and recording of
supplementary statement.
61. PW-11 Retired ACP Raj Kumar Khatana deposed
that on 14.02.2017, while posted as ACP Ambedkar Nagar, fur-
ther investigation of the case was entrusted to him. According to
him, all aspects of investigation had already been completed ex-
cept interrogation of accused Kamal Rai. He stated that a notice
under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was issued to accused Kamal Rai, who
joined investigation on 08.03.2017 and was interrogated by him.
He admitted that no separate disclosure statement or interroga-
tion report of accused Kamal Rai was prepared.
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 30 of 38
62. In his cross-examination, PW-11 admitted that he
himself had not visited the spot of occurrence as the same had al-
ready been inspected by previous Investigating Officers. He fur-
ther stated that accused Kamal Rai had taken a plea of alibi by
claiming that he was present on duty at the relevant date and
time, though according to the witness, accused Kamal Rai did not
furnish any documentary proof in support thereof.
63. The accused persons namely Kamal Rai and Priya
Rai, in their joint statement recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C.,
admitted the genuineness of certain documents and dispensed
with the formal proof thereof. Accordingly, the following docu-
ments stood admitted without requiring examination of formal
witnesses:Copy of FIR — Ex. PA1; Certificate under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act — Ex. PA2; DD No. 36B dated
02.10.2015 — Ex. PA3; Copy of caste certificate of complainant
Suman Kantee — Ex. PA4; Copy of caste certificate of Gajadhar
— Ex. PA5; Verification reports relating to caste certificates of
Gajadhar and Suman Kantee — Ex. PA6 and Ex. PA7; Statement
of complainant Suman Kantee recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. dated 07.10.2015 — Ex. PA8 (colly); and Certificate un-
der Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to the
PCR form — Ex. PA9. Thus, the accused did not dispute the gen-
uineness or authenticity of the aforesaid documents and their for-
mal proof was accordingly dispensed with by the Court. How-
ever, such admission under Section 294 Cr.P.C. pertains only to
Digitally
signed by
Samar
Samar vishal
vishal Date: SC No. 617/2017
2026.05.15
State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 31 of 38
16:26:25
+0530
the genuineness of the documents and does not amount to admis-
sion of the truthfulness or correctness of the contents thereof.
64. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon careful
appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence avail-
able on record, the statement of accused persons under section
313 of the CrPC and upon considering the submissions of both
the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of accused Priya Rai and accused Ka-
mal Rai beyond reasonable doubt in this case .
65. At the very outset, it is clear that the foundational re-
quirement for attracting the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci-
ties) Act, 1989, as applicable at the relevant time, has not been
proved with the degree of certainty required in criminal law. The
said provision punishes intentional insult or intimidation with in-
tent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view. Therefore, the prosecution
was required to prove not merely exchange of abuses or quarrel
between neighbours, but specific caste-based humiliation inten-
tionally directed against the complainant on account of her caste
identity.
66. In the present case, the earliest version of the prose-
cution, namely complaint Ex. PW1/A, assumes considerable sig-
nificance. Surprisingly, in the said complaint, there is no clear or
specific allegation that accused Priya Rai or accused Kamal Rai
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 32 of 38
intentionally insulted or humiliated the complainant or her family
members on account of their caste. The specific caste-related ex-
pressions which later became the backbone of the prosecution
case are conspicuously absent in the initial complaint. PW-1 her-
self admitted during cross-examination that the alleged casteist
expressions such as “chure chamar”, “dedh chamar”, “chamaro
ko chawani mil gayi” etc. were not mentioned in Ex. PW1/A.
She further admitted that the allegations against accused Kamal
Rai regarding the incident dated 03.10.2015 were also never
made in writing before the police at the relevant time.
67. The explanation offered by PW-1 that police offi-
cials did not permit her to mention such allegations in the com-
plaint does not inspire confidence. Ex. PW1/A is otherwise a de-
tailed complaint containing several factual assertions. If indeed
such serious caste-based abuses had been hurled publicly, noth-
ing prevented the complainant from specifically mentioning the
same in the earliest version. The omission is material and strikes
at the root of the prosecution case because the offence under the
SC/ST Act is founded precisely upon the exact nature of caste-
based humiliation.
68. The subsequent versions given by the complainant in
her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and later during trial ap-
pear to contain substantial improvements and embellishments.
The complainant not only improved the allegations relating to
caste abuses, but also introduced numerous earlier incidents al-
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 33 of 38
legedly occurring in the years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 involv-
ing several persons including Akhilesh, Brijesh, Rajni, Rupa
Devi and others. Most of these allegations had no direct nexus
with the incident in question and admittedly did not find mention
in the original complaint Ex. PW1/A. The tendency of the com-
plainant to introduce multiple unconnected incidents and impli-
cate several persons who were never charge-sheeted in the
present matter materially affects the reliability of her testimony
and reflects a propensity toward exaggeration.
69. The evidence led by the prosecution witnesses re-
garding the actual words allegedly used by the accused persons is
also highly inconsistent and mutually contradictory. PW-1 stated
that accused Priya Rai said, “tujhe jeena haram kar dungi, tujhe
gali mein nahi rahne dungi, chamar ko chauanni mili hai to
uchalne lage hain” and also used the words “chure chamar”.
PW-3 Raghunandan stated that accused Priya Rai and CCL ‘V’
said, “chamaro ko chawani mil gayi hain toh uchalne lage hain.”
PW-4 Ram Singh deposed that accused Priya Rai said, “tumhara
baap aayega, chamaro ko chawani mil gayi hain toh uchalne lage
hain, main isko bhaga ke chodugi yahan se.” PW-5 Raj Kumar
attributed the words, “behen chod teri haramjadi, yeh chamar ko
chawani mil gayi toh jyada uchalne lage hain” to CCL ‘V’ and
later, upon leading questions, added that accused Priya Rai said,
“chamar ko chawani mil gayi hain isliye uchalne laga hain, yahan
se bhaga kar chodugi.” PW-6 Sundari attributed the words,
Samar”bhadwe tujhe rehne nahin dungi, mil gayi chawani chamar ko
vishal toh uchalne lage hai” to accused Priya Rai.
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 34 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:26:32 +0530
70. Thus, there is no coherent, consistent or trustworthy
account regarding the exact words allegedly used by the accused
persons. The variations are not minor discrepancies arising from
lapse of memory; rather they go to the very substratum of the
prosecution case. In offences under the SC/ST Act involving ver-
bal caste-based humiliation, the precise words used, the context
in which they were uttered, and the intention behind them be-
come crucial. Where different witnesses narrate materially differ-
ent expressions and allegations, it becomes unsafe to convict
solely on such wavering testimony.
71. Further, the evidence on record indicates that the
dispute essentially arose over a trivial neighbourhood altercation
regarding splashing of water from the terrace/chajja. Admittedly,
both families were neighbours residing in close proximity for
several years and prior disputes already existed between them. It
has come on record that criminal cases had been registered by
both sides against each other. PW-1 herself admitted that FIR No.
627/2015 under Sections 354/341/506/509 IPC had been regis-
tered at the instance of accused Priya Rai against her father and
uncle regarding the incident of the same date. Another criminal
case was also admittedly registered subsequently between the
parties. The background circumstances thus clearly indicate long-
standing animosity and recurring neighbourhood disputes be-
tween the two families.
72. In this context, the observations of the Hon’ble
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 35 of 38
Supreme Court in Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104) assume significance, wherein it
was held that for attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, it
must be shown that the offence was committed on account of the
victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that
the element of intention to humiliate on the basis of caste is es-
sential. Mere use of abusive language during a quarrel, without
establishing the requisite intention linked to caste identity, would
not ipso facto attract the penal provisions of the Act.
73. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case,
it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the al-
leged abuses, even if assumed to have been uttered during the
quarrel, were intentionally directed toward humiliating the com-
plainant solely because she belonged to a Scheduled Caste com-
munity. The evidence rather suggests a heated neighbourhood
dispute between two hostile families where both sides exchanged
allegations and instituted criminal proceedings against each
other.
74. It also cannot be lost sight of the fact that most of
the so-called independent witnesses produced by the prosecution
are either closely associated with the complainant’s family or res-
idents of the immediate vicinity who admittedly knew the com-
plainant party for several years. PW-3 Raghunandan is the com-
plainant’s uncle. PW-4 Ram Singh belongs to the same locality
Samar and caste community. PW-5 Raj Kumar was admittedly visiting
vishal the house of Raghunandan. PW-6 Sundari also resides merely a
Digitally signed SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 36 of 38
by Samar vishal
Date: 2026.05.15
16:26:40 +0530
few houses away from the complainant. Their testimonies do not
receive any substantial corroboration from any truly independent
source.
75. The investigation conducted in the present case also
suffers from noticeable lacunae. Although the alleged incident is
stated to have occurred in a public gali during daytime, no neu-
tral independent public witness was joined during investigation.
The Investigating Officers admitted that no CCTV footage was
searched or collected despite the incident occurring in a residen-
tial locality. No medical examination of the complainant was
conducted despite allegations of assault and outraging modesty.
The statements of several witnesses were recorded belatedly after
considerable lapse of time. PW-9 ACP Amit Kaushik admitted
that despite visiting the locality, no independent witness ac-
quainted with the facts of the case could be traced. Even the al-
leged incident dated 03.10.2015 involving accused Kamal Rai
was never formally reported through any PCR call or written
complaint contemporaneously.
76. Another significant circumstance is that PW-5 Raj
Kumar initially stated that police never recorded his statement,
but later changed his version during cross-examination and stated
that his statement was recorded on the next day in the police sta-
tion. PW-6 Sundari initially even mentioned the month of the in-
cident incorrectly as December 2015 and corrected herself only
after leading questions by the prosecution. Such inconsistencies
Digitally
signed materially
by weaken the evidentiary worth of the prosecution case.
Samar
Samar vishal
vishal Date: SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 37 of 38
2026.05.15
16:26:47
+0530
77. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused
must necessarily be adopted. The burden always lies upon the
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and such
burden never shifts. Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute
legal proof.
78. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the cumulative
effect of material improvements in the testimony of PW-1, incon-
sistencies and contradictions regarding the alleged casteist
abuses, absence of such allegations in the earliest complaint, ad-
mitted background of neighbourly enmity and cross-cases, lack
of reliable independent corroboration, and deficiencies in investi-
gation create substantial and reasonable doubt in the prosecution
story.
79. Accordingly, giving benefit of doubt, accused Priya
Rai and accused Kamal Rai are hereby acquitted of all the
charges framed against them in the present case. Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court on Samar Samar vishal
Date:
15th May 2026. vishal 2026.05.15
16:26:58
+0530
(Samar Vishal)
ASJ-02/South District
Saket / New Delhi
15.05.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 38 pages and
Digitally signed
each page bears my signatures. Samar by Samar vishal
Date:
vishal
(Samar
2026.05.15
Vishal)
16:27:04 +0530
ASJ-02/South District
Saket / New Delhi
15.05.2026
SC No. 617/2017 State Vs Kamal Rai and Ors. Page No. 38 of 38
