Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 22nd January 2020
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2020)
Facts
The deceased Baisakhu, in a drunken state met Kamla Prajapati on a particular road. Kamla Prajapati took him to his house, but the deceased stated that he had to return Rs.250/- to Nasru and requested to take him to his place. Upon insistence of the deceased, Kamla took him to the house of Nasru, where accused Babbu Rathore was consuming liquor. Kamla returned back, leaving the deceased there, as he also wanted to consume liquor. When Ujaria Bai, the wife of the deceased, went to the house of Nasru, to inquire about her husband, Nasru informed her that the deceased had left with the accused. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Information of unnatural death was recorded by the police and the post-mortem revealed that death was unnatural and caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.
The preliminary investigation confirmed that the deceased was last seen with the Respondent. A charge sheet was filed against the Respondents for offences punishable under s. 302/34, 404/34 of the IPC and s. 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’). The Trial court took cognizance of the matter and a Special case was registered. During the proceedings, statement of material witnesses was recorded. At the advanced stage of the trial, a grievance was raised by the Respondents that though they had been charged under s. 3 (2) (v) of the Act, the investigation had been conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (as provided under s. 9 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995). Hence, the very investigation is faulty and illegal and deserves to be set aside. Further, the proceedings in the Trial Court does not hold good and Respondents deserves to be discharged.
The Trial Court held that the investigation had been conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and was without authority and illegal. Hence, the Respondents were discharged from the charges levelled against them under the provisions of the Act, 1989 and from the provisions of IPC for which there is no requirement of the investigation to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The said judgement was challenged before the HC but was dismissed. Hence, the Appellants approached the SC.
Appellant’s contention
The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondents were charged for offences punishable under s. 302/34, 404/34 of the IPC and s. 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989. In the given circumstances, the HC had committed an apparent error in quashing the proceedings and discharging the Respondents on a hyper technical ground. The same is not sustainable n law and that too when the trials are at the advanced stage and all material prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Respondent’s contention
The counsel for the Respondents, while supporting the order of the HC, submitted that if the very investigation was found to be faulty and not in compliance with the mandate of s, 9 of the Act, 1989, the structure built up by the Appellant could not sustain on the weak foundation. The fact that the investigation had been carried out against the mandate of law had not been contested by the Appellant. Hence, no error had been committed by the HC in confirming the judgement of the Special Judge.
Held
The question arose before the court that apart from the offences committed under Act, 1989, if the offence complained are both under the IPC and the offence enumerated in s. 3 of the Act, 1989 and the investigation had been carried out by a competent police officer under CrPC, can the offences under IPC be quashed and set aside for non-investigation of the offence under s. 3 of the Act, 1989 by a competent police officer. The question had been examined in the case of State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh (2009 12 SCC 649). There, the Division bench of the SC held that ‘the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non-investigation of the offence under s. 3 of the Act by a competent police officer’.
The Court held that the HC had committed an apparent error in quashing the proceedings and discharging the Respondents from the offences committed under the provisions of provisions of IPC where the investigation had been made by a competent police officer under the provisions of the Code.
Leave a Reply