BIDYA SAGAR DAS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P., for the State.

(2.) This application is directed against the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2013 whereby and where under the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Sec. 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioner as the allegation of calling the victim Dome was not attributed to her rather, the same was said to one Sonaram Samant. Learned counsel submits that in the entire investigation which has been carried out by the police or in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. no insinuation has been cast upon the petitioner of directly calling the victim in the name of her caste so as to come within the ambit of an offence under Sec. 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the investigation was carried out by the Sub Inspector of Police who was not authorised in terms of Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. It has been submitted that in such circumstances since there is a fundamental error in the initiation of the case and the investigation upon it no prosecution can lie against the petitioner.