Case Note & Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which confirmed the trial court's order discharging Babbu Rathore and another respondent from offences under Sections 302/34, 404/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The deceased Baisakhu was last seen with the respondents and his dead body was recovered on 14 July 2011; postmortem revealed death by strangulation. The investigation was conducted by a Sub-Inspector, below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. At an advanced stage of trial, after material witnesses were examined, the respondents sought discharge on the ground that the investigation under the SC/ST Act was illegal for non-compliance with Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995, which require investigation by an officer not below DSP rank. The trial court discharged them from all charges, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that while the investigation under the SC/ST Act was indeed invalid, the IPC offences were investigated by a competent police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure and could not be quashed. Relying on State of M.P. v. Chunnilal (2009) 12 SCC 649, the Court ruled that proceedings for IPC offences should continue. The appeal was partly allowed: the discharge order was set aside for IPC offences, and Special Case No. 37/11 was restored for trial of IPC offences only. The Court directed expeditious conclusion of the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Validity - Where offences are under both IPC and SC/ST Act, investigation by competent police officer under CrPC for IPC offences cannot be quashed merely because investigation under SC/ST Act was by officer below DSP rank - Held that proceedings for IPC offences shall continue notwithstanding defective investigation under SC/ST Act (Paras 10-12). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 9 - Investigation - Rule 7 of SC/ST Rules, 1995 - Mandatory requirement that investigation under the Act be conducted by officer not below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police - Investigation by lower rank officer is illegal and invalid for offences under the Act (Paras 9-10). C) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Trial Court and High Court erred in discharging accused from IPC offences when investigation for those offences was conducted by competent police officer under CrPC - Held that discharge order set aside for IPC offences and trial restored (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in discharging the respondents from all offences including IPC offences when the investigation under the SC/ST Act was conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The discharge order is set aside for offences under IPC (Sections 302/34, 404/34). Special Case No. 37/11 is restored to the file of Special Court, District Anuppur (MP) for trial of IPC offences only. The trial court shall proceed expeditiously. The discharge for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act stands.
Law Points
- Investigation under SC/ST Act must be by officer not below DSP rank
- but IPC offences investigated by competent officer under CrPC cannot be quashed for non-compliance with Rule 7 of SC/ST Rules
- 1995
