Chennai: Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to issue suitable directions to all district police heads to conduct investigation when the provisions of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is invoked strictly in accordance with law especially by complying with the provisions of Rule 6 and 7 of the SC and ST (PA) Rules.
Justice M.V. Muralidar also directed the Registry to send the copy of his judgment to the DGP, Tamil Nadu. Allowing an appeal filed by Surendrakumar, challenging an order of a trial court, convicting and sentencing him to undergo seven years’ RI in a rape case, the judge acquitted him.
The prosecution case was that on January 17, 2000, when the victim, an 18-year-old girl, went to attend call of nature, was gagged by the accused and was taken to the bank of a nearby pond and was molested amidst strong protest.
Based on a complaint, the police registered a case for offences under section 323, 376 IPC and section 3 (i) and 3 (ii) (v) of SC/ST (PA) Act. The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, found the accused guilty under section 376 IPC and imposed a sentence of seven years’ RI.
The judge said it was the case of the appellant that Rule 7 of the SC/ST (PA) Rules mandates that an offence committed under the SC/ST (PA) Act shall be investigated by the police not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the compliance of Rule 7 was mandatory, if any violation was found, the same would affect the root of the case.
“This court is having no option other than to accept the contention. Apart from that the trial judge though discussed that DSP in the name of investigation examined only 3 witnesses, but he miserably failed to apply the mandatory requirement of Rule of the Act. At the same time, the government advocate is trying to justify that investigation was conducted partly by the DSP and the rest of the part was on his supervision. Unfortunately, this contention of the government advocate is unacceptable,” the judge added.
Referring to the evidence of the girl, the judge said this court was unable to appreciate the same as the same was lacking bonafide. Apart from that no conviction can be sustained when the same was imposed based on uncertain evidence. When the other evidence of prosecution was perused they would not able to point out the accused to connect the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The records would show that there was no appeal filed either by the prosecution or by the victim as against the acquittal of the accused from the charges of the SC/ST (PA) Act.
“So, in total the evidence produced by the prosecution is inadequate but at the same time the same has been disproved by the accused by way of cross examination of the witnesses, the judge added.
