The bench comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi passed judgment in the case titled State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore & anr.
Background of the case:
The deceased in a drunken state went to accused house and later when inquired by the wife of the deceased, one of the respondents stated that he didn’t know the whereabouts of the deceased. The preliminary investigation confirmed that the deceased was last seen with the present respondents. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted which proved that the death was unnatural and caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.
The respondents pleaded. “that they had been charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and since the investigation has been conducted by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police which is the mandate of law as provided under Section 9 of the Act, 1989 read with Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the very investigation is faulty and illegal and that deserves to be quashed and set aside and in consequence thereof, further proceedings in trial does not hold good and respondents deserve to be discharged.”
The Trial Court held that the investigation has been conducted by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and is without authority and illegal and in consequence thereof, discharged the respondents not from the charges levelled against them under the provisions of the Act, 1989 but also from the provisions of the IPC for which there was no requirement of the investigation to be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Trial Court further observed that the offences under IPC can be quashed and set aside for non-investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 by a competent police officer. For this question the Court relied upon State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh (2009(12) SCC 649), in which it was held that,
“By virtue of its enabling power it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue a notification conferring power of investigation of cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for different areas in the police districts. Rule 7 of the Rules provided rank of investigating officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer. The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent 8 police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for noninvestigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in an appropriate court for the offences punishable under IPC notwithstanding investigation and the chargesheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence.”
The Supreme Court stated that, “the High Court has committed an apparent error in quashing the proceedings and discharging the respondents from the offences committed under the provisions of IPC where the investigation has been made by a competent police officer under the provisions of the Code. In such a situation, the chargesheet deserves to proceed in an appropriate competent Court of jurisdiction for the offence punishable under the IPC, notwithstanding the fact that the chargesheet could not have proceeded confined to the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989.”
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal with respect to the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 and not in respect of offences punishable under the IPC. The Special Case was restored on the file of the Special Court, District Anuppur (MP) and the trial Court may proceed further and conclude the trial expeditiously in respect of offences punishable under the IPC in accordance with law.
Read the Judgment:
