Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1283 (AP)

Public Prosecutor v. Public Prosecutor

2004-11-03

body2004
( 1 ) (CRIMINAL Appeal under Section 378 (3) and (1) of Crl. P. C. against the Judgment dated 16/08/2003 in SC. No. 6 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Warangal ). The State preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal recorded in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. Today, the matter is coming up for admission. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri. P. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/accused. ( 2 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the learned Judge having recorded a finding that P. W. 11, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet, who conducted the entire investigation and laid the charge sheet, had definitely erred in recording an acquittal on the ground that the prosecution did not prove that P. W. 11 was specially appointed by the State Government for investigating the offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience ). Even otherwise in the event of doubt opportunity could have been given to prosecution to establish the same and hence, the matter to be admitted and to be further examined at the stage of final hearing. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet had laid the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging that on 18. 04. 2001 at 10 am at Lingagiri cross roads, they abused one Mali Subbaiah belonging to Scheduled Tribes by pointing out his caste with an intention to defame him in the view of public and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as under: p. W. 1 is a resident of Bapunagar and a labourer. His son veeranna was the farm servant of A1 on the annual salary of Rs. 3,000/ -. He worked there for two months and thereafter, P. W. 1 performed his marriage and after the marriage, his son did not attend the work of A. 1. A1 gave an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as advance at the time of the marriage of his son. 3,000/ -. He worked there for two months and thereafter, P. W. 1 performed his marriage and after the marriage, his son did not attend the work of A. 1. A1 gave an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as advance at the time of the marriage of his son. As his son did not attend the work under A1, he abused the son of P. W. 1 and beat him and his son left the village and one year thereafter, his son paid an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to A1 and thereafter A1 demanded P. W1. to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- along with interest and obtained a document pertaining to his 14 guntas of land for the amount due to him. 3 months thereafter, P. W. 1 sold the said land covered by the said document to one Somla and Somla demanded P. W. 1 to get the document executed in favour of A1 pertaining to the above said land to pay the remaining sale consideration for the above said land, then on P. W. 1 went to A1 and requested him to return the document, but A1 refused and thereafter a panchayath was held at Lingagiri and the accused refused to return the document and abused P. W. 1 but taking his caste and beat him in the presence of one Sailu, P. W. 8 Pilli Mallaiah and P. W. 7 M. Venkanna and others. P. W. 1 gave the report Ex. P. 1 to P. W. 10 M. Durgaiah the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennaraopet Police Station on the same day i. e. , on 19. 04. 2001 at 3. 30 pm and on the basis of the said report, P. W. 10 registered a case in Cr. No. 58/2001 for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued the first information report Ex. P7. He sent the original F. I. R. along with the report to the concerned Magistrate and copies of the F. I. R. to the concerned officers. P. W. 11 A. S. C. Wesley Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet, on the same day received the F. I. R. and took up investigation in this case and immediately, he proceeded to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P. Ws. 1 to 9 and on 25. 04. P. W. 11 A. S. C. Wesley Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet, on the same day received the F. I. R. and took up investigation in this case and immediately, he proceeded to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P. Ws. 1 to 9 and on 25. 04. 2001, P. W. 10 Sub-Inspector of Police apprehended the accused and brought them to the Office of P. W. 11 and he has effected the arrest of the said accused and sent them to the Court for judicial custody on the same day. He has collected the caste certificate of P. W. 1 i. e. Ex. P8 and after the completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ( 5 ) THE matter was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasmpet as P. R. C. No. 49 of 2001 and committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Special Judge for the cases under the Act had tried the same. On appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 11 and the documents, Exs. P1 to P8, the learned Judge recorded her findings and ultimately held that Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the purpose of convenience) had not been satisfied and accordingly, acquittal had been recorded. Apart from this aspect of the matter, a specific finding had been recorded by the learned Judge that P. W. 11, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet had conducted the entire investigation and laid charge sheet and the prosecution had not proved that P. W. 11 was specifically appointed by the State Government for investigating the offences under the Act and hence, the whole trial is vitiated. ( 6 ) IN D. Ramalinga Reddy v. State of A. P. , (1999 (1) ALT (Crl) 287 (A.)) this Court while dealing with the Rules framed under Section 23 (1) of the Act in general, and Rule 1 in particular, held that Rule 7 prescribes that any offence under the Act should be investigated by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and also the officer should be specifically appointed by the State Government for investigating offences under the Act and in view of the fact that the investigation was done by S. I. of Police and not by an officer envisaged under Rule 7, the whole trial was held to have been vitiated. ( 7 ) A Similar view was expressed in Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar (2000 Crl. L. J. 1891 ). In the said decision, the Patna High Court while dealing with Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules referred to supra, held that taking cognizance of an offence under Section 3 of the Act, where investigation done by Deputy Superintendent of Police who was not legally appointed by the State Government by issuing notification, the cognizance taken on that basis was held to be illegal. ( 8 ) IT may be appropriate to have a look at Rule 7 of the Rules dealing with an investigating officer, which reads as under:7. Investigating Officer: (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer and 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 investigation done by the Investigating Officer. (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 investigation done by the Investigating Officer. ( 9 ) IN the light of Rule 7 of the Rules referred to supra and also in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Judge that the prosecution had not established the compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules, this Court does not see any legal infirmity in recording acquittal by the learned Judge and hence, the findings are hereby confirmed. ( 10 ) HENCE, for the reasons stated supra, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission.