( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11-1-2000 passed by the Special Judge, Vidisha, in Special Case No. 193/97, by which the learned Court convicted the appellant under section 376 (2), (g ). of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo further simple Imprisonment for one year.

( 2 ) APART from the merits of the case, counsel for the appellant also challenged this appeal on the ground that in this case the investigation has not been done by the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Although this ground has not been taken in the memo of appeal but being a legal ground, he has raised this ground at the time of final arguments.

( 3 ) THE background of the case, in short, is that the report of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix on 28-5-97 at 10. 30 a. m. at Police Station, Vidisha, that in the night, appellant along with co-accused Ghamandi came to the house of prosecutrix and knocked the door and asked for flour. She opened the door and then both the accused persons entered into the house of the prosecutrix. Co-accused Ghamandi caught hold her, pressed her mouth and the appellant keshav committed sexual intercourse with her. After completion of the act, appellants ran away. Soon after the incident, on the cry of the prosecutrix, Narbadi Bai (PW-3), kanchedi (PW-4) and Gumani (PW-5) came there and opened the door of the house of the prosecutrix then prosecutrix narrated the incident to them.

( 4 ) ON the basis of written complaint Ex. P-2, first information report was lodged at police Station which is Ex, P-6. Both prosecutrix and the appellant were sent for medical examination. The report of the appellant is Ex. P-1 while the report of the prosecutrix is Ex. P-5. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant along with co-accusd and the charges under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed against the appellant while charges were framed against the co-accused ghamandi under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC.

( 5 ) THE trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and convicted under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC.

( 6 ) BEFORE coming to the merits, I would like to discuss the objection raised on behalf of the appellant that investigation, in this case, was not done by the Deputy superintendent of Police, therefore, the trial would vitiate and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

( 7 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it shall be referred to as "the Act 1989"), the central Govt. made the rules which are known as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter it shall be referred to as "the Rules 1995" ). The Rules 1995 came into existence from 1-4-1995.

( 8 ) I would like to reproduce Rule 7 of the rules 1995 which is as follows : -"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 his 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 within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government. (3) The Home Secretary and the Social (Secretary to the S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document