THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. BABBU RATHORE

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).  123  OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 11369 OF 2019) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BABBU RATHORE & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court th of Madhya Pradesh dated 9   May, 2019 confirming Order of the th trial Judge dated 24   July, 2015 whereby the respondents have Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2020.01.17 16:20:23 IST Reason: been discharged from the offences under Sections 302/34, 404/34 of   the   IPC   and   Section   3(2)(v)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and 1 Scheduled   Tribes(Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989(hereinafter being referred to as “Act, 1989”) at the advanced stage of the trial when almost all the material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution which has given rise to this appeal. 3. The background facts in nutshell are that deceased Baisakhu, in a drunken state met Kamla Prajapati on road to ward no. 10, Pasia,   Thana   Anuppur,   Anuppur,   Madhya   Pradesh.     Kamla Prajapati took him to his house, but the deceased Baisakhu stated that   he   had   to   return   two   hundred   fifty   rupees   to   Nasru   and requested him to take to his place.   Upon insistence of deceased Baisakhu, Kamla Prajapati took him to the house of Nasru where accused Babbu Rathore was drinking liquor.  Baisakhu stated that he wanted to have liquor so leaving him there, Kamla Prajapati returned back.   When Ujaria Bai, the wife of deceased, went to house of Nasru to inquire about her husband, then Nasru told her that deceased Baisakhu had left with Babbu Rathore.   The dead th body of Baisakhu was recovered on 14  July, 2011.  Information of unnatural death was recorded by police and post­mortem on the 2 body   of   the   deceased   was   conducted   which   proved   death   was unnatural and caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.  4. The preliminary investigation confirmed that the deceased was last seen with the present respondents.   After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted by the Sub­Inspector and charge­sheet came   to   be   filed   against   the   present   respondents   for   offences punishable under Section 302/34, 404/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. The   trial   Court   took   cognizance   of   the matter and Special Case No. 37/11 was registered. 5. During proceedings in Special Case No. 37/11, statement of the material witnesses PW 2 Narsu, PW 4 Kamla Prajapati and PW 5 Uparia Bai, wife of deceased Baisakhu were recorded.   It appears from the record that at the advanced stage of the trial,  a grievance was raised by the respondents that they had been charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 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(Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Rules,   1995(hereinafter   being 3 referred to as the “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. 6. Learned trial Court, while taking note of Section 9 of the Act, 1989 and Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 held that the investigation has been   conducted   by   an   Officer   below   the   rank   of   Deputy Superintendent of Police and is without authority and illegal and in consequence   thereof,   discharged   the   respondents   not   from   the charges levelled against them under the provisions of the Act, 1989 but also from the provisions of the IPC for which there was no requirement of the investigation to be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police under judgment th dated 24  July, 2015 which came to be challenged before the High th Court of Madhya Pradesh and dismissed by a cryptic order dated 9 May, 2019. 7. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the respondents were charged for offences punishable under Section 302/34, 404/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 and 4 in   the   given   circumstances,   the   High   Court   has   committed   an apparent  error  in  quashing   the     proceedings  in  discharging  the respondents on a hyper technical ground that the investigation has been   conducted   by   an   Officer   below   the   rank   of   Deputy Superintendent of Police and discharging the respondents in the given circumstances is not sustainable in law and that too when the trial   is   at   the   advanced   stage   and   all   the   material   prosecution witnesses have been examined and the judgment of the High Court needs to be interfered by this Court. 8. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while supporting the order of the High Court, confirming judgment of the th trial   Court   dated   24   July,   2015   submits   that   if   the   very investigation was found to be faulty and not in compliance with the mandate of Section 9 of Act, 1989 read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995, the structure built up by the appellant could not sustain on the weak foundation, and this fact has not been disputed by the appellant that investigation was conducted by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police which is the mandatory requirement under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995, and in the given 5 circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Special Judge in discharging the respondents and confirmed by the High th Court vide its order impugned dated 9  May, 2019. 9. For   appreciating   the   rival   submissions,   we   need   to   refer Section 9 of the Act, 1989 and Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 which are as under:­

6 “ Rule   7.  Investigating   officer —(1)   An   offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police   officer   not   below   the   rank   of   a   Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be   appointed   by   the   State   Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice   to   perceive   the   implications   of   the   case   and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub­ rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within   thirty   days   and   submit   the   report   to   the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government. (3)   The   Home   Secretary   and   the   Social   Welfare Secretary   to   the   State   Government,   Director   of Prosecution, the officer in charge of prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer.” 10. By   virtue   of   its   enabling   power,   it   is   the   duty   and responsibility   of   the   State   Government   to   issue   notification conferring power of investigation of cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.  Rule 7 of the Rules 1995 provides rank of investigation officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.  An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer in holding investigation in reference to the offences committed under any provisions of the Act, 7 1989 but the question arose for consideration is that apart from the offences committed under the Act 1989, if the offence complained are both under the IPC and the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act, 1989 and the investigation being made by a competent police   officer   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Code   of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter being referred to as the “Code”), the offences   under   IPC   can   be   quashed   and   set   aside   for   non­ investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 by a competent police officer.   This question has been examined by a two­Judge Bench of this Court in  State of M.P. Vs. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh  2009(12) SCC 649.  Relevant para is as under:­

8

11. Undisputedly,   in   the   instant   case,   the   respondents   were charged under Sections 302/34, 404/34 IPC apart from Section 3(2)(v)   of   the   Act,   1989   and   the   charges   under   IPC   have   been framed after investigation by a competent police officer under the Code,   in   such   a   situation,   in   our   view,   the   High   Court   has committed   an   apparent   error   in   quashing   the   proceedings   and discharging the respondents from the offences committed under the provisions   of   IPC   where   the   investigation   has   been   made   by   a competent police officer under the provisions of the Code.  In such a situation, the charge­sheet deserves to proceed in an appropriate competent Court of jurisdiction for the offence punishable under the IPC, notwithstanding the fact that the charge­sheet could not 9 have proceeded confined to the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989. 12. The order impugned is accordingly restricted to the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 and not in respect of offences punishable under the IPC.  The Special Case No. 37/11 is restored on the file of the Special Court, District Anuppur(MP) and the trial Court may proceed further and conclude the trial expeditiously in respect of offences punishable under the IPC in accordance with law. 13. The appeal is partly allowed in terms as indicated above. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. …………………………….J. (INDU MALHOTRA) ……………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI January 17, 2020 10