Investigation of SC/ST Act offences by officers below DSP rank is illegal, invalidating conviction under the Act.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bolangir, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1997 for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively, with concurrent sentences.

The prosecution alleged that on 2 March 1996 the appellant forcibly dragged the prosecutrix, a Scheduled Tribe woman, into a hut in her husband’s vegetable garden and had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance.

Her blouse was allegedly torn, and her bangles and religious thread were broken; her husband and cousin allegedly arrived at the spot during or immediately after the occurrence.

The trial court relied on the prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborative evidence of witnesses, medical injuries, seized articles and alleged semen stains to record conviction.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the proof of forcible intercourse and contended that the sexual act was consensual. He also argued that the SC/ST Act offence had been investigated by a Sub-Inspector in violation of Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules.

1. Whether the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was sustainable when the investigation was conducted by a Sub-Inspector rather than a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was without the prosecutrix’s consent and thereby constituted rape under Section 376 IPC.

3. Whether the evidence relating to the caste meeting, the conduct of the prosecutrix and other surrounding circumstances established a consensual sexual encounter and created a reasonable doubt in favour of the appellant.

The Court applied Section 376 IPC, requiring the prosecution to establish the ingredients of rape, including sexual intercourse without consent, beyond reasonable doubt.

It also considered Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, which penalised assault or use of force on a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.

Under Section 9 of the SC/ST Act read with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, investigation of an offence under the Act must be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore and State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh, the Court held that investigation of an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act by an officer not appointed in accordance with Rule 7 is illegal and invalid, although such defect does not invalidate investigation of the IPC offence by a competent officer.

The Court further applied the principle that where the evidence raises a reasonable doubt regarding absence of consent, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

The Court held that the investigation of the SC/ST Act offence by P.W.11, a Sub-Inspector, directly contravened Rule 7; consequently, the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) could not stand.

As to Section 376 IPC, the Court accepted that sexual intercourse had occurred and noted that the prosecutrix’s account was supported to some extent by her injuries and the medical evidence.

However, it found material circumstances creating doubt about forcible intercourse: P.W.6, the husband, described the incident as an illicit relationship; P.Ws.6 and 10 referred to the subsequent caste meeting and alleged admissions by the prosecutrix; and D.Ws.1 and 2 supported the defence version that the encounter was consensual.

The Court also relied on the absence of significant violence at the scene, the lack of injuries on the appellant, the absence of vaginal or vulval injuries on the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix’s admission that she neither scratched nor struck the appellant, and the chemical examiner’s inability to opine on the presence of semen in the seized clothes.

On the cumulative assessment, the Court concluded that although intercourse had taken place, the prosecution had not proved absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt.

It also set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC, holding that the evidence created a reasonable doubt regarding forcible and non-consensual intercourse.

The appellant was therefore acquitted of all charges, his bail bond was discharged, and the appeal was allowed.

The Court awarded the appointed Amicus Curiae an honorarium of ₹7,500 for his assistance.