The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for investigation under the SC & ST Act to be conducted by a specified police officer, and the impact of non-compliance on the sustainability of the conviction.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep K. Shinde, J. - Appellants have preferred this appeal against the conviction and order of sentence dated 29th January, 1998, passed in the Special Case No.2 of 1995, by the Sessions Judge, Solapur; particulars of which are as under:

(i) Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 have been convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC & ST Act' for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.

(ii) Appellant/Accused Nos.1 and 2 have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3(a) and (b) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, but no separate sentence has been awarded as they have been convicted and sentenced under the SC & ST Act.

(iii) Appellant-accused no.3 has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that, complainant and his family members, being members of scheduled caste, were denied entry in village temple by the accused, who belonged to upper caste except accused no.3, who belongs to scheduled caste community. Complainant thus, alleged that on 31st May, 1995 when he had been to village temple to perform, a pre-wedding ritual, the accused insulted and intimidated them, with intent to humiliate as member of scheduled caste. On a report, crime under the provisions of the SC & ST Act and under Sections 523 and 506 of the IPC were registered. Investigation was carried out by the Assistant Police Inspector attached to Solapur Taluka Police Station. Whereafter he fled charge-sheet. To prove the charge, prosecution had examined six witnesses. The Trial Court upon appreciating the evidence, convicted the accused as stated above against, which this appeal is preferred.

3. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that in view of the clear mandate of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 ('Rules' for short), only specified Deputy Superintendent of Police could investigate the offence under the Act and, therefore, investigation done by any officer below that rank and not specified as per Rule 7, was not authorised officer to investigate such offence. Mr. Chaudhary, therefore, contends, this inherent defect makes and renders the conviction unsustainable. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, would also contend, contradictions and omissions crept in the testimonies, has rendered the case of prosecution uncertain. He would submit that evidence of Navnath (P.W.1), Shivaji (P.W.2) and Indrajit (PW 5) contradict and counter, the complaint at Exhibit 19 fled by Kalidas Jalindar Thorat. Submission is that, written complaint fled by Kalidas Jalindar Thorat on 31st May, 1995 does not suggest or show that accused intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate complainant and his family being a member of scheduled caste. Mr. Chaudhary would also contend that false case has been fled since complainant had lost Gram Panchayat elections against the accused. On these grounds, he seeks acquittal of the appellants.

4. Mrs. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, fairly admits that the investigation under the Act being, not carried out by the officer specified in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the impugned conviction under the SC & ST Act may not sustain, but since offences under Section 523 and 506 of the IPC were being registered and investigation being carried out by an officer empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, conviction under Section 506 of the IPC cannot be disturbed. In support of this submission, she has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. B