Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Naushad s/o Chhotekha, was convicted by the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Special Case 2/2002 for offences under Section 354 (outraging modesty) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and three months respectively, along with fines. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The appellant's counsel, Shri Abdul Subhan, argued that the entire trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which requires investigation by a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.). He relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Viswanadhula Chittibabu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.V. Palshikar, countered that the investigation was conducted by a Sub-Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O.), who is not below the rank of Dy.S.P., and that no suggestion was made to P.W.3 Hansraj Meshram that the investigating officer was of a lower rank. The court, presided over by Justice Rohit B. Deo, considered the submissions. The judgment was reserved on 11.10.2017 and pronounced on 13.10.2017. The court held that the investigation by the S.D.P.O. complied with Rule 7, as the officer was of a rank not below Dy.S.P., and thus the trial was not vitiated. The court did not disturb the convictions under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, and the acquittal under the Atrocities Act remained. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Rule 7 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Validity of Investigation - The appellant argued that the investigation was not conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police as required under Rule 7, thereby vitiating the trial. The court held that the investigation was conducted by a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who is not below the rank of Dy.S.P., and thus there was no non-compliance. The trial was not vitiated. (Paras 2-3) B) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction - The appellant was convicted under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of a woman. The court upheld the conviction, noting that the evidence established the offence. (Para 1) C) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction - The appellant was also convicted under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation. The court upheld this conviction as well. (Para 1) D) Atrocities Law - Acquittal - Section 3(i)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The appellant was acquitted of the offence under the Atrocities Act. The court did not disturb this acquittal. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial is vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, as the investigation was not conducted by a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 354 and 506 IPC are upheld. The acquittal under Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is not disturbed.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with Rule 7 of SC/ST Rules
- 1995 does not vitiate trial if investigation is conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
- Sub-Divisional Police Officer is equivalent to Dy.S.P.
- Acquittal under SC/ST Act does not affect conviction under IPC
