Compliance with Rule 7 of the SC/ST Rules and the definition of Scheduled Tribe community under Article 342 of the Constitution of India are crucial in determining the applicability of charges under the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant case has been filed to quash the charges framed by the Court below against the petitioners for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act 1989, in Spl. C.C.No.1 of 2019.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2019, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased Tamizh alias Elavarasan and at about 19.30 hrs, when the deceased was coming along with his friend Innarasan in a motorcycle, they were waylaid by the accused persons and the deceased Tamizh alias Elavarasan was assaulted indiscriminately with a sickle causing his instantaneous death. Immediately, the complainant viz., Innarasan (LW1) informed the police about the incident and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.185 of 2018, for an offence under Section 341, 302 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police, Villianur Police Station, Puducherry and the FIR was altered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302,120(b), 212 of IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC. Totally seven accused persons were identified.

4. The investigation was completed and final report was filed on 03.10.2018, before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Puducherry and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.10 of 2018.

5. Subsequently, it came to be known that the accused persons knew that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and the incident that took place on 14.01.2017 was taken note of for this purpose, wherein, the accused persons had warned the deceased and his friend Moorthy and made them apologize before the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, for having consumed alcohol in a public place. Therefore, on 04.10.2018, the Investigating Officer added Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in Short “the SC/ST Act”) and submitted an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

6. On the completion of the investigation, a further report was filed for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, r/w Section 149 of IPC. The Court below took into consideration the final report, further report and the statements recorded from the witnesses and framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(B), 212 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act r/w. Section 149 of IPC.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the charges framed against the petitioners for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, is not sustainable in view of the fact that Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short “the SC/ST Rules”) has not been complied with in this case. The learned counsel submitted that, under the said rule, only the designated officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, can investigate the case. In the instant case, the case was investigated initially by the Inspector of Police, who filed a final report on 03.10.2018. Thereafter, the same Inspector of Police, filed an alteration report on 04.10.2018 by adding Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Subsequently, the same Investigating Officer had examined LW12, LW13 and LW7. Subsequently, the Case Diary was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who filed the Additional Charge Sheet. This Officer had recorded the statements of seven witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The Inspector of Police had recorded the statement of 21 witnesses. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the entire investigation insofar as the offence under the SC/ST Act is concerned, is completely vitiated and the charges framed by the Court below under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, against the accused persons is not sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 5th petitioner (A5) belo