Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. L. KOCHAR, J.
BHARATSINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Cri. Appeal 47 Of 1998
Decided On : 07/12/2006
(ii) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 3(1)(x) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294 — Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 — Rule 7 — Conviction of accused persons for throwing stones and hurling abuses to complainants in name of their caste — Investigation done by police officer not having jurisdiction — Effect — Investigation done by inferior officer of police, than Superintendent of police duly appointed as per Rule 7 caused prejudice to appellants because Investigating Officer even did not obtain certificate from competent authority to establish that complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community — Held Investigation Officer was not aware of provision of Act and Rules and investigated matter in routine manner — If investigation would have been done by designated police officer, he would have probably first ascertained whether complainant was falling within the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe — Conviction of appellants held liable to be set aside. (Paras 6, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
1.The accused persons herein in the instant case were convicted under Section 294 IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, for throwing stones and hurling abuses to complainants in name of their caste.
2.Aggrieved by said order of conviction and sentence appellants have preferred present appeal.
3. Findings of the Court: The Court held that prosecution failed to establish by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that complainant PW 1 belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community. Even though PW 1 deposed in Court statement that he belonged to BALAI caste. However he never stated that his caste fell within category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even though appellants had admitted that complainant belonged to BALAI Community. However since none of prosecution witnesses stated so, it was not sufficient to establish that complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. No caste certificate was filed by prosecution to prove that caste of complainant fell within category of Scheduled Caste. Held filing of caste certificate is sine qua non. Investigation was done by inferior officer of police, than Superintendent of Police duly appointed as per Rule 7 which caused prejudice to appellants because Investigating Officer even did not obtain certificate from competent authority to establish that complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community. Hence held that conviction of appellants could not be sustained
Result: Appeal allowed
( 2 ) FACTS of the prosecution case as unfurled before the trial Court were that the complainant Rameshwar and Sobajsingh had established an idol of Godess Durga in harijan locality of village Jamodl and on that occasion they had fixed the loud-speaker. On the idol and loudspeaker the accused persons threw stones and hurled abuse to rameshwar and Sobalsingh in the name of their caste namely, Balai-Chamar who reported the matter to the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate. Tonk Khurd in writing. The tehsildar, Tonk forwarded that application of Rameshwar (Ex. P. 1) to the SHO pipalranwa who reduced a Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P. 3) in writing and registered FIR (Ex. P. 4) on the basis of the Dehati Nalishi. Police prepared the Spot map and after due investigation, charge-sheeted the appellants. The appellants denied the charges.
( 3 ) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined ' the complainant rameshwar, Sobalsingh and I. O. while the accused persons examined Dhansingh in their defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court found that appellants guilty of the aforesaid offences. convicted and sentenced them as indicated hereinabove.
( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable because the prosecution has failed to establish by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that the complainant (P. W. 1)Rameshwar belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. In the Court statement Rameshwar (P. W. 1) has deposed that he belongs to Balai caste but no-where he has stated that his caste falls within the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated so though the appellants have admitted that the complainant belong to Balai community but that itself is not sufficient to establish that the complainant belonged to the scheduled caste community. Learned trial Court, without any evidence on record, has held in para 8 of the judgment that the complainant Rameshwar (P. W. 1) and sobalsingh (P. W. 2) belong to the Scheduled caste Community. The prosecution has not filed any caste certificate issued by the duly competent authority to prove that the caste of the complainant Rameshwar falls within the category of Scheduled Caste. Filing of caste certificate is sine-quo-non. This Court has examined this issue in detail and held so in the caste of Bhagwansingh v. State of m. P. (Cr. Appeal No. 1396/1988 ). The learned trial Court in its judgment has not decided this issue in the light of the definition of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe defined under Section 2, sub-section (1) (c)of the Act which reads thus :-
"scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" shall have the meaning assigned to them respectively under Cl. (24) and Cl. (25) of Art. 366 of the Constitution. "
( 5 ) THE next glaring defect in the prosecution case is that the investigation was done by Surendrasingh Jhala (P. W. 3), SHO p. S. Pipalranwa whereas according to R. 7 of the Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities') Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') the investigation shall be made by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of police. Rule 7 of the 'rules' is reproduced as under :-
Rule 7. Investig
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
