JUDGMENT Gautam Chourdiya, J. - This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.1998 passed by the Special Judge, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, M.P. (now C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 03/1996, whereby, the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Act') Rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each 2. In present appeal, as per report dated 24.02.2016 received from Station House Officer, Police Station Sivri Narayan annexed with death certificates, accussed- Mukhiram (A-1) has died on 06.11.2012 and accused- Sitaram (A-2) has died on 11.03.2013. Therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of accussed- Mukhiram (A-1) and accused- Sitaram (A-2) stands abated and is dismissed as such. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint Ex.-P/1 has been made by the complainant- Tijram (PW-1) against the accused persons before the police that on 08.11.1990 at about 5:00 pm, when meeting was called in Gram Panchayat Building of village Bhawtara by accused persons namely Mukhiram, Sitaram (both since died), Bhagat, Chhedilal and Chhotelal, complainat- Tijram could not reach there within time fixed as per proclamation. On this, all the accused persons saying that "chamar log har baithak mein ishi tarah karte hain - ein chamaro ke ghar nange hokar beijati karo". As per written complaint dated 09.11.1990, Crime No. 214/90 was registered at Police Station- Sivri Narayan. 4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against all the accused/appellants under Section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act and while framing the charges, the Special Judge framed the charge under Section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The Special Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para- 1 of this judgment, hence this appeal. 7. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that any offence under the Special Act is to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police but in this case, the entire investigation has been conducted by the Inspector who is prosecution witness namely Shailendra Kumar Dubey (PW-5) and the FIR (Ex.-P/2) was recorded by L.K. Gaikwad (PW-4), Inspector. Therefore, entire investigation stands vitiated as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1995). 8. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that as per statement of complainant- Tijram (PW-1), in para - 2, accused Mukhiram alleged to complainant that "ye chamar log aisa hi karte hai", therefore, there is no any statement in the evidence of complainant that accused Mukhiram intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. He further submits that no any evidence regarding complainant Tijram being a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is adduced by the prosecution. He further submits that looking to the statement of Tijram (PW-1) that accused persons were saying that "chamar log har baithak mein ishi tarah karte hain - ein chamaro ke ghar nange hokar beijati karo", it appears to be an omnibus statement. No any specific allegation made against each accused as to who uttered this and general statement regarding all accused is not a specific evidence. Therefore, the allegation made against the accused/appellants is not made out and a such, the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 9. No any specific allegation made against each accused as to who uttered this and general statement regarding all accused is not a specific evidence. Therefore, the allegation made against the accused/appellants is not made out and a such, the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State opposes the contention made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that definitely in this case, investigation was conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. As per statements of L.K. Gaikwad (PW-4) and Shailendra Kumar Dubey (PW-5) both Inspectors, but there is no prejudice caused to the appellants in this case. Though no any document is produced regarding complainant being a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe by the prosecution, but accused persons had knowledge about Tijram being a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community. Therefore, Special Court rightly convicted the appellants by the impugned judgment which needs no interference by this Appellate Court. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 11. First of all, reference or Rule 7 of Rules 1995 appears to be a necessity for disposal of the case in hand, which reads as under: "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 alongwith right lines within the shortest possible time. (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis 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." 12. (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." 12. As per record of the Special Court, Ex.-P/1 (written complaint) & Ex.-P/2 (FIR) are proved and admitted in evidence, no other document is produced and proved regarding complainant being a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community. No any evidence is adduced by complainant- Tijram (PW-1) himself or other witnesses namely Khobahra (PW-2) and Gokul (PW-3), L.K. Gaikwad (PW-4) and Shailendra Kumar Dubey (PW-5) that complainant- Tijram is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Therefore, one of the main ingredients for attracting the provisions of the Special Act that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste or schedule tribe community itself has not been proved by the prosecution as required under the law. As regards the argument of the Appellants counsel was that in this case investigation is conducted by the Inspector whereas Rule 7 of Rules 1995 provides that offence committed under the Special Act shall be investigated by police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is not acceptable for the reason that admittedly, the date of offence is 08.11.1990, the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 came into force from 31st March, 1995, therefore, the said Rules, 1995 is not applicable in the present case. 13. Looking to the statement of Tijram (PW-1), the allegation made against accused- Mukhiram is that Mukhiram said that "chamar log har baithak mein ishi tarah karte hain - ein chamaro ke ghar nange hokar beijati karo", but accused Mukhiram has died on 06.11.2012 and accused Sitaram has also died on 11.03.2013 during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of both accused has been abated. Regarding other accused/appellants namely Bhagat (A-3), Chhedilal (A-4) and Chhotelal (A-5), omnibus statement made by the complainant against them that accused persons said that saying that "chamar log har baithak mein ishi tarah karte hain - ein chamaro ke ghar nange hokar beijati karo". However, there is no specific evidence as to which of the accused made utterance of these words. 14. However, there is no specific evidence as to which of the accused made utterance of these words. 14. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the appeal in respect of accused- Bhagat (A-3), Chhedilal (A-4) and Chhotelal (A-5) is allowed. Their conviction and sentences under Section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. 15. It is also stated that the accused/appellants namely Bhagat (A-3), Chhedilal (A-4) and Chhotelal (A-5) are on bail since 25.05.1998, therefore, their bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.