ATAM THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners call in question the legality of the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -cumSpecial Judge (S.C. and S.T. Act) Palamau in Hariharganj P.S. Case No.35 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No.790 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the code), has been rejected.

(2.) THE petitioners have been made accused in Hariharganj P.S. Case No.35 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant - Indrajeet Ram that on 01.05.2009 at about 8.15 a.m. the petitioners armed with Lathi and Danda came at the settled land of the informant, which was given to him by Bhudan Yagya Committee and ransacked the hut situated on the said land and with the help of Poklan machine started digging the land but when the informant tried to obstruct them, they abused the informant in filthy languages by naming his caste and also uttered "Chamra Khane Wala" and assaulted the informant and his family members. It appears from the record that after investigation the police submitted charge sheet in the above Sections in which the case was lodged and thereafter the court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -I cum Special Judge under the Act. Whereafter a petition was filed under Section 227 of the Code for discharge of the petitioners but the court below rejected the prayer by the order impugned holding that the witnesses examined during investigation have all stated that accused persons abused the informant by calling "Harijan Chamar" and uttered filthy languages and the words "Harijan, flesh eater, Sala". Hence, there is sufficient material on record for framing charge against the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai by raising a solitary question as to whether non -compliance of the mandates given in Section 9 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the Act') and Rule 7 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') whereby the investigation has to be carried out by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed in terms of Rule 7, the investigation done in the case is sustainable in the eye of law and consequently the order refusing to discharge the petitioners can sustain in the eye of law and in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a case State of Madhya Pradesh V. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh, 2009 12 SCC 649 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly directed that the Investigating Officer must not be below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.