AJAI LAMB A, J. - (1.) - The appellant No. 1 Dilip Kumar Verma, has been convicted and sentenced as under.-
(2.) THE prosecution case as per the First Information Report version, lodged at the instance of Constable Shiv Sahay, P.W.I, is that on 14.11.1995, when the said person alongwith, homeguard Ram Bahadur Singh, P.W.2, duly armed was posted at Digiha Trisection on picket duty, at about 9.30 a.m., former M.L.A. Dilip Kumar Verma came on a Rajdoot motorcycle, armed with rifle, alongwith another person armed with a revolver, who was driving the motorcycle. Suddenly the said person came and said to the complainant (P.W.1, Shiv Sahay) as to why the Jeep of appellant Dilip Kumar Verma had not been allowed to be parked. THE complainant, PW-1, said that it was his duty to ensure that the traffic is not jammed on the road. Dilip Kumar Verma got infuriated on this and started abusing the complainant in the name of his mother and sister and also in the name of his caste (the offending sentences on account of their dirty content are not being mentioned). On saying so, Dilip Kumar Verma put his rifle on the chest of the complainant. In the meantime, Devi Prasad Mishra, P.W.3, and Kunwar Prasad, came along with others and saved the complainant. Charge-sheet was filed against appellant No. 1, Dilip Kumar Verma for commission of offence under sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, section 3 (1)-(X) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short S.C./S.T. Act) and section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas against Kuldip Verma for commission of offence under sections 307, 353, 504, 506, I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act as also under section 3 (i) (x), S.C./S.T. Act, No conclusive evidence of commission of offence under section 307, I.P.C. was found by the Trial Court, therefore, both the appellants have been acquitted of the said charge. During trial, complainant, who deposed as P.W.1 and the other eyewitness, a homeguard Ram Bahadur Singh who deposed as P.W.2 supported the prosecution case. Devi Prasad Mishra and Mahesh Kumar, P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively, did not support the prosecution story. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that there has been no investigation in regard to the fact that the appellant No. 1 was armed with a rifle; as to whether or not the appellants had licenced weapons or not and no recovery has been affected. Learned Counsel contends that in such circumstances, in the absence of any investigation in regard to misuse of firearms, conviction for commission of offence under section 27 of the Arms Act could not have been recorded.
(3.) IN regard to commission of offence under section 3 (1) (X), S.C./S.T. Act, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short 'S.C./S.T. Rules'), only an officer, not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police, duly appointed by the State Government, could investigate the case. IN the case in hand, officer of such rank holding such post and duly authorized, has not investigated the case and, therefore, conviction for commission of offence under S.C./S.T. Act could not have been recorded. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, in the above regards, has relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh.1 In regard to offences under sections 506 and 504, Indian Penal Code, learned Counsel appearing for appellants has argued that no investigation had been conducted as to whether appellant No. 1 owned a jeep whether the said appellant lived in the vicinity and whether there was any issue of parking of jeep. In this context, reference has been made to the statement of P.W.1, who admits that he had not seen jeep of appellant No. 1 earlier. It has been argued that in such circumstances there was no occasion for the appellants to have insulted the complainant intentionally with intent to provoke breach of 1. 2009 (65) ACC 652 (SC) = 2009 (77) AIC 33 (SC). peace or to have criminally intimidated the complainant. In view of the above contentions, it has been argued that the appellants deserve acquittal. ;