Non-compliance with statutory investigation requirements under Rule 7 of the SC & ST Act renders prosecution insufficient unless fundamental rights of the accused are violated.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.35 of 2000 (S.C. No.228/2000-GDC), whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant for the offences under Sections 493 /417/506 of I.P.C., convicted him for the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and on that count, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 2002. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel.

3. Heard Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 1997 the informant was engaged as a casual labourer under the accused. During the course of such engagement, acquaintance between the parties gradually developed into intimacy. It is alleged that the accused assured the informant that he would marry her and, on the strength of such assurance, established physical relations with her. As a consequence thereof, the informant conceived. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused had also promised to provide the informant with a dwelling house, a sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash, and 20 bharans of land. When the informant was about four months pregnant, she requested the accused to honour his promise of marriage and other assurances; however, he allegedly avoided the same. The informant thereafter disclosed the matter to the villagers, but the accused is stated to have threatened her to assault and harm. Alleging deception and betrayal on the part of the accused, the informant lodged a written report on 09.09.1999 at Chatrapur Police Station. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 493 /417/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial.

5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, cited as an eye-witness to the occurrence, did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. P.W.2 was the medical officer, who examined the victim on 10.09.1999 and opined that she was pregnant for about six to nine months. P.W.3 is the victim-cum-informant. P.W.4, the then S.I. of Police, Chatrapur P.S., and P.W.5, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Home Guard), are the investigating officers, the latter having submitted the charge-sheet.

6. The learned trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution could prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt to establish the case under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act alone, but not the other charges and gave the following findings:-

“9. Learned counsel for the accused argued that since the case was not investigated by one Deputy Supdt. of Police, the entire prosecution need to be quashed. I am conscious of the obs