Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1010 (JHR)

Bidya Sagar Das v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P., for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioner as the allegation of calling the victim “Dome” was not attributed to her rather, the same was said to one Sonaram Samant. Learned counsel submits that in the entire investigation which has been carried out by the police or in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. no insinuation has been cast upon the petitioner of directly calling the victim in the name of her caste so as to come within the ambit of an offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the investigation was carried out by the Sub-Inspector of Police who was not authorized in terms of Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. It has been submitted that in such circumstances since there is a fundamental error in the initiation of the case and the investigation upon it no prosecution can lie against the petitioner. 4. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P., has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the use of caste name was in presence of the victim and such circumstance is enough to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It has further been submitted that several Paragraphs of the case diary more notably Paragraph 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 100 and 101 substantiate such allegation against the petitioner coupled with the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 5. On consideration of the evidence which has been collected by the Police in course of the investigation it has come to light that the petitioner has hurled abuses to Sonaram Samant but the same can be construed to mean that it was used against the victim girl. On consideration of the evidence which has been collected by the Police in course of the investigation it has come to light that the petitioner has hurled abuses to Sonaram Samant but the same can be construed to mean that it was used against the victim girl. The intention of the petitioner along with other accused persons to humiliate the victim girl squarely make out the case for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Such circumstance has correctly been dealt with while refusing to discharge the petitioner from the prosecution. 6. However, so far as the question of law with respect to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Inspector of Police who carried out the investigation for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act although the same had perhaps not been raised by the petitioner before the learned trial court or even if it was raised the same has not been dealt with by the learned trial court and which affects the virtual initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner it would be in the interest of justice that such contention be considered by the learned trial court. Even assuming that the question of jurisdiction of the Sub-Inspector of Police to carry out the investigation was never raised before the learned trial court the same does not preclude the learned trial court to have considered the issue as the same involves the question of law and it is to be seen whether the conducting of the investigation by the Sub-Inspector of Police is in direct conflict with Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. 7. Accordingly, while allowing this application the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to consider by restricting itself only to the question as to whether Sub-Inspector of Police can carry out the investigation and submit charge-sheet in view of the Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The learned trial court after hearing the parties shall consider such aspect of the matter and pass necessary orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This application stands disposed of. 9. Let the lower court records be also sent back forthwith. Application disposed of.