The Madras High Court Bench here has set aside the conviction and one-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Sessions Court on a government bus driver under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for having allegedly abused a Dalit passenger by referring to his caste name.
Allowing an appeal preferred by Francis Salaysia of Thanjavur district, Justice S. Vimala pointed out that the police had conveniently avoided examining the bus conductor, the most crucial eye-witness to the incident and the most appropriate person to speak about it, just because they presumed that he would only support the accused and not the victim.
“The duty of the prosecution is not to place materials which would ensure conviction. Its duty is to place complete materials before the court which, in turn, would decide whether the evidence indicates the guilt or innocence of the accused. Excavation of truth is the ultimate aim of any trial. Therefore, the court should only draw adverse inference for non-examination of the conductor,” she said.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to the Pattukottai police in Thanjavur, the incident occurred when the victim was travelling from Pattukottai to Mogur on November 19, 2009.
On the way, he insisted that the bus should halt at a particular stop. However, the conductor refused and it led to a heated argument between them. Then, the appellant, seated next to the driver of that bus, had reportedly abused the victim.
Disagreeing with the trial court which had accepted the prosecution’s explanation for not examining the conductor, Ms. Justice Vimala said: “This proposition, if accepted, is very dangerous and the material witnesses could be suppressed by the prosecution by adopting this logic. It does not lie in the mouth of the prosecution to say that the conductor would support the accused without even examining him.
ADVERTISEMENT
“During examination, if he supports the accused, he can be treated as a hostile witness and he could be cross-examined with the permission of the court. When there is a procedure available to find out the truth even from the mouth of a hostile witness and when there is a provision to take action for perjury… it is not open to the prosecution to withhold an important witness and justify the non-examination.
“Just because the accused is a driver belonging to some other bus, it does not mean that the conductor would support the driver. Even assuming that the conductor would support the accused, it is for the court to find out the veracity of the evidence. Further, there is also no explanation whatsoever as to how the accused person could have known the caste of the complainant.”
A bus driver was accused of abusing a Dalit passenger referring to his caste name