NAGNATH RAMA ARJUN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have preferred this appeal against the conviction and order of sentence dated 29th January, 1998, passed in the Special Case No.2 of 1995, by the Sessions Judge, Solapur; particulars of which are as under:

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that, complainant and his family members, being members of scheduled caste, were denied entry in village temple by the accused, who belonged to upper caste except accused no.3, who belongs to scheduled caste community. Complainant thus, alleged that on 31st May, 1995 when he had been to village temple to perform, a prewedding ritual, the accused insulted and intimidated them, with intent to humiliate as member of scheduled caste. On a report, crime under the provisions of the SC & ST Act and under Sections 523 and 506 of the IPC were registered. Investigation was carried out by the Assistant Police Inspector attached to Solapur Taluka Police Station. Whereafter he fled charge-sheet. To prove the charge, prosecution had examined six witnesses. The Trial Court upon appreciating the evidence, convicted the accused as stated above against, which this appeal is preferred.

(3.) Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that in view of the clear mandate of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 ('Rules' for short), only specifed Deputy Superintendent of Police could investigate the ofence under the Act and, therefore, investigation done by any officer below that rank and not specifed as per Rule 7, was not authorised officer to investigate such ofence. Mr. Chaudhary, therefore, contends, this inherent defect makes and renders the conviction unsustainable. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, would also contend, contradictions and omissions crept in the testimonies, has rendered the case of prosecution uncertain. He would submit that evidence of Navnath (P.W.1), Shivaji (P.W.2) and Indrajit (PW 5) contradict and counter, the complaint at Exhibit 19 fled by Kalidas Jalindar Thorat. Submission is that, written complaint fled by Kalidas Jalindar Thorat on 31st May, 1995 does not suggest or show that accused intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate complainant and his family being a member of scheduled caste. Mr. Chaudhary would also contend that false case has been fled since complainant had lost Gram Panchayat elections against the accused. On these grounds, he seeks acquittal of the appellants.