Investigation in IPC Offences Cannot Be Quashed For Non Investigation of SC-ST Offences

Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 27th January 2020

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Babbu Rathore Cri. Appeal 123 of 2020 

Facts-

• In this case, the deceased Baiskahku in a drunken state met Kamla Prajapati. The deceased stated that he has to return 250 Rs. to Nasru and requested him to take to his place. Kamla took him to the house of Nasru where the accused Babbu Rathore was drinking liquor. Kamla left the house after leaving Baisakhu there upon his request. The wife deceased, inquired Nasruabouther husband, then Nasru told her that deceased Baisakhu had left with Babbu Rathore. The dead body of Baiskahku was found.
• The preliminary investigation confirmed that the deceased was last seen with the respondents. The investigation was conducted by the Sub­-Inspector and charge­sheet came to be filed against the respondents for offences punishable under Section 302/34, 404/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989.
• In the trial, a grievance was raised by the respondents that they had been charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act 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(PreventionofAtrocities)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.

Judgement-

• The Apex Court agreed with the High Court observed that an officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer in holding investigation in reference to the offences committed under any provisions of the SC-ST Act. The Supreme Court interpreted rule 7 of the rules 1995 which provides the rank of investigation officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
• The Supreme Court referred the judgement of State of M.P. vs. Chunnilal, in which the respondents were charged under Sections 302/34, 404/34 IPC apart from Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 the charges under IPC have been framed after investigation by a competent police officer and the HC has committed an error in quashing the proceeding and discharging the respondents from the offences under IPC where the investigation was made by the competent police officer. 
• Thus it held that the trial in respect of offences punishable under the IPC can be proceeded with accordance with law