Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 136
2011(4) C.G.L.J. 51
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, J.
HORILAL & ANOTHER Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1967 of 1996,
Decided On : 18-4-2011.
Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Shri Neeraj Mehta, PL, for the State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the investigation under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must be conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police as required by Rule 7 of the Rules, and any violation of this requirement renders the trial as vitiated.
Headnote:
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Conviction under Section 3 (1) (X) read with 34 - Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 - [Section 3 (1) (X) read with 34] - [Rule 7]
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for abusing the complainant using filthy language and calling him Chamar under Section 3 (1) (X) read with 34 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The investigation was conducted by a Sub Inspector, contrary to the requirement of Rule 7 of the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation conducted by a Sub Inspector instead of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, as required by Rule 7, rendered the entire trial as vitiated.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the investigation conducted by a Sub Inspector instead of a Deputy Superintendent of Police as required by Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation conducted by a Sub Inspector, in violation of Rule 7, rendered the entire trial as vitiated, leading to the acquittal of the accused/appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment impugned was set aside, and the accused/appellants were acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.1996 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 128/1996 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (X) read with 34 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the "Act") and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 1.11.1995 FIR (Ex. P-1) Vi as lodged by Ram Bagas (PW-1) alleging that on 31.10.1995 at about 8 p.m. cattle of one Indal had damaged the crop of Chandulal and when he along with some other persons namely Chanulal, Khorbahra and Asaram was taking the cattle to the cattle pond, one of the cattle sat down near the house of one Horilal and during this period, the accused/appellants came out from their house and asked them to release the cattle. It is alleged that some altercation took place between both the parties in which accused/appellants abused the complainant using filthy language and calling Chamar. Based on this FIR, offence was registered under Section 3 (1) (X) of the Act and after completion of investigation challan was filed by the police on 18.1.1996 for the said offence. However, the charge has been framed by the Court below under Section 3 (l) (X) read with 34 of the Act. .
3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the. case. This apart, one Ram Ratan (DW-l) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case.
4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.
5. Counsel for the appellants submits that in the case in hand the investigation has been done by M.S. Baghel (PW-6) who at the relevant time was holding the post of Sub Inspector in the Police Department whereas charge sheet was tiled by another Sub Inspector namely Ram Krishna Singh (PW-7). He submits that Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 (for short the "Rules") the investigation ought to have been conducted by the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police specially authorized by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent ofPo1ice. He submits that when the investigation itself is faulty, entire proceedings are vitiated and the accused/appellants deserve to be acquitted on this ground alone.
6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. He however admits that the investigation has been done by M.S. Baghel (PW-6) Sub Inspector in the police department and the challan has been filed-by-aifuther Sub inspector namely Ram Krishna Singh (PW-7).
7. First of all, reference of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 appears to be a necessity for disposal of the case in hand, which reads as under:
"7. Investigating Officer - (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately
