BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.1.2000 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes), Guna(M.P.) in Special Case No.42/96, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-(I) Appellants have been convicted under Section 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each with a fine of Rs. 100/- each. They have further been convicted under Section 426 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.(II) Appellant Bhagwan Singh has been convicted under Sections 323 and 451 of IPC and sentenced to under gorigorous imprisonment for three months (on both counts) with afine of Rs. 100/-.(III) Appellant Kishore Singh and Indrapal Singh2 Cr. A. llo of 2000have been convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.(IV). In default of payment of fine, they have also been directed^to undergo imprisonment.(V) All the sentences are to be run concurrently. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that report was lodged by the complainant Jujla(P.W.1) on 23.4.96 at about 10:15at police station Chanderi that a day before occurrence, appellant Bhagwan Singh had come and told the complainant to work at his thresher. Complainant had refused to work at thresher.

(2.) The reafteron the date of incident, i.e. on 22.4.% at village Bhatija appellantscame to his house and abused him and also threatened to kill himin case he did not work at thresher and caused damage to thebricks of the roof of the house of the complainant. Appellant Bhagwan Singh has also beaten him causing injury to his hand. The complainant was sent to the hospital for medical examination. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court and the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants accordingly as stated above. On 30.1.2007 arguments heard finally and onl7.1.2007, a reference was made by this Court and the matter was referred to the larger Bench to clarify the following points:- (I) Whether the compliance of Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 ismandatory; (II) Whether due to non-compliance of the said rule the whole trial would vitiate or only those offences relating to the Scheduled3 Cr. A.110 of 2000Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (III) Whether this objection regarding non-compliance of the Rule 7 can be taken for the first time before the Appellate Court; and(iv) If it is found that Rule 7 ismandatory whether the Court can direct for reinvestigation in terms of Rule 7 and direct to file fresh charge-sheet before the Court. During the course of final submissions, counsel for the appellants raised the following points that in this case, there non-compliance of Rule 7 of SC &ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") by the investigating agency. Further, the offences under Atrocities Act and Indian Penal Code are interlinked to each other. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained and particularly. the charge-sheet was filed against the appellants directly before the Special Court. There is no committal proceeding.

(3.) Therefore,the judgment of trial Court is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the finding of sentence is not maintainabie. Regarding the non-compliance of Rule 7, what would be the consequence for that is considered in the case of Dhanraj Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2006(1) M.P.J.R.70, in which it was held that the entire investigation is vitiated and the conviction cannot be maintained. Accused were acquitted in both the offences under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act and under Section 323 of IPC. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Bharat Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2006 Cr. LJ. 4429.But, this Court has taken contradictory view in the case of Keshav Singh Vs. State of M.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2000, judgment dated 21.09.2006.The Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2000 answered the reference on 24th August, 2007 and the answer recorded by Division Bench is as under: -