HANIF ABDUL KADIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against appellant's conviction by the learned Special Judge, Alibaug, District-Raigad for the offence punishable under Section 3(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of ' 2000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed upon the appellant on conclusion of Special Case No. 23 of 1994 before him. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-

(2.) The learned Special Judge charged the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the appellant. After considering the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence of denial, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel I have gone through the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant first submitted that the entire investigation and trial was vitiated, since investigation was not conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides for framing of rules. Accordingly, rules have been framed. Rule 7 of those rules provides that an offence under the Act shall be investigated by the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Such investigating officer has to be appointed by the State Government or Director General of Police or Superintendent of Police after taking into account the past experience, ability and sense of justice, implications of the case and ability to investigate the offence along the right lines within the shortest possible time. In this case, the investigation was carried out by PSIs PW-8 Vijaya Yashwant Bagade, PW-9 Madhukar Murlidhar Chandane and PW-10 Ashok Dattatraya Sawant. Of them, PW-10 Ashok Sawant had sent charge sheet. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a reference to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in the evidence of PW-9 Madhukar Chandane, there is nothing on record to show that Sub-Divisional Police Officer, in fact, carried out investigation. Since investigation itself was not carried out as provided by Rule 7 of the rules framed under the Act, the learned counsel for the appellant may be right in submitting that conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained.