R. Ravichandran vs State of Tamilnadu and Others

M. Chockalingam, J.—This petition has been brought forth seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to entrust the investigation in Crime

No. 180/01 on the file of the 5th respondent to a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a direction to the

respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, who investigated the Crime No. 180/01

on the file of the 5th respondent as per Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also

a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse to the petitioner the relief amount he is entitled to as per the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Pursuant to a written complaint by the petitioner to Voimedu Police Station, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 180 of 2001 under Ss

341, 323 I.P.C. read with Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act on 11.4.2001. Immediately after the registration of the case, the Inspector of Police,

Voimedu Police Station, who registered the case, submitted the papers to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for necessary action. In turn, the

Deputy Superintendent of Police shown as the 4th respondent herein, took up the investigation, examined the witnesses including the complainant

and completed the investigation. He handed over the same to the Inspector for further investigation in view of the fact that it did not disclose an

offence falling under the provisions of the SC & ST Act and dropped the further action with reference to the provisions under the said Act.

Accordingly, the further investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, and a charge sheet under Ss 341 and 323 of I.P.C. was filed.

The complainant, who is the petitioner herein aggrieved over the deletion of the case under the provisions of the SC & ST Act, has brought forth

this petition seeking for the above said reliefs.

Arguing for the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that after receiving the complaint, a case came to be registered under Sec. 3(1)(x)

of the SC & ST Act, but the case should have been investigated into by a Deputy Superintendent of Police; that neither the Inspector of Police nor

any other Officials had actually recorded the statements from the petitioner/complainant and other witnesses; that in fact, none of the persons

whose statements having been allegedly recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not even met by the Police Personnel;

that a reading of the statements revealed that they have been brought on record only to demolish the entire case and the complaint as recorded in

the F.I.R.; that the Police Officer has taken every care to see that the case ended in acquittal, and therefore, the narration of the occurrence has

been so made in the statements to contradict the complaint in the F.I.R. in entirety; that the 5th respondent has purposefully deleted the provisions

of SC & ST Act, and the same was contrary to the settled position of law; that only the Special Court constituted under the SC & ST Act was

empowered to do the same taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case; that no notice was served on the petitioner with regard to

the deletion of the provisions of SC & ST Act; that the charge sheet should have been laid only by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and that

too in the Special Court constituted under the Act; that the entrustment of the investigation of the offence under SC & ST Act with an Officer

below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has been done without any reason whatsoever; that since the offence was committed

against the petitioner namely one under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, he should have been paid the relief amount as set out in the Annexure to

the said Act, and hence, the Court has to invoke its inherent powers to issue directions as sought for.

Opposing strongly the above contentions put forth by the petitioner''s side, the learned Government Advocate would submit that immediately on

the complaint given by the petitioner, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Voimedu Police Station in Crime No. 180/01 under Ss

341, 323 IPC read with Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police has actually taken up the investigation, examined

the witnesses and recorded their statements; that all the witnesses, including the complainant were enquired, and their statements have also been

recorded; that the same was also done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police; that the Inspector had neither enquired nor recorded the

statements of the witnesses including the complainant; that a perusal of Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. statements recorded from the complainant and the

witnesses would clearly indicate that at the time of the occurrence, there was not even the utterance of the caste name; that in view of the same, the

Deputy Superintendent of Police found that there was nothing to attract the provisions of the SC & ST Act, and hence, he handed over case for

further investigation by the Inspector with the direction of deletion of the provisions under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act; that thereafter, a

charge sheet was filed under Ss 341 and 323 of I.P.C.; that the investigation was done properly and there was no infirmity or lacuna in that, and

hence, the facts and circumstances do not warrant for any re-investigation in the matter.

After careful consideration of the rival submissions, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for all or any one of the

reliefs asked for.

Admittedly, a complaint was given by the petitioner herein alleging that on 8.4.2001, there was a celebration of a local temple festival at

Mappillai Veeran Koil on 9.4.2001 at mid night namely at 12.00 hours, he was witnessing a dance programme organised in connection with the

said festival; that there was heavy crowd watching the dance programmed ;that the sixth respondent was standing by the side of the complainant;

that the sixth respondent suddenly got wild and pushed him down saying ""being a person hailing from the Scheduled Caste why he was standing by

his side and touching him bodily""; and that immediately the other accused also joined with him and attacked him. Admittedly on receipt of the

complaint, the fifth respondent, Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No. 180/01 under Ss 323, 341 of I.P.C. read with Sec. 3(1)(x) of

the SC & ST Act. It is brought to the notice of the Court that after the registration of the complaint including the provisions under the SC & ST

Act, the matter was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation. According to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Vedaranyam, Sub Division, Nagapattinam, who filed an affidavit, nowhere in the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded by him,

the complainant or any one of the witnesses has spoken to the effect that any word referring to the caste of the complainant was uttered by any one

of the accused therein. After recording of the statements, the Official concerned thought it fit that it is not a case where the respondents 6 and

7/accused could be accused of the offence under the provisions of the SC & ST Act, but there was a case for offences under Ss 341 and 323 of

I.P.C., and he entrusted the further investigation to the Inspector of Police, who did accordingly and filed the charge sheet. Thus, it is not a case

where the investigation was done by the Inspector of Police.

On registration of the case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of SC & ST Act, the Inspector, who

registered the case, did not investigate the same, but handed over the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has proceeded with the

investigation. It was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who recorded the statement of the complainant and the witnesses also. Since neither the

complainant nor one of the witnesses has spelt about any utterances as to the caste, it would not attract any of the provisions of the SC & ST Act.

Hence, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has rightly handed over the case to the Inspector of Police for further investigation. The Inspector on

completion of the investigation has laid the charge sheet also.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though there were no utterances as to the caste, even then Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC

& ST Act would be attracted, and hence, there should not have been a deletion of the said provision, but the investigation should have been

proceeded in that line by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The said contention cannot be countenanced in view of the provisions of Sec. 3(1)

(x) of the Act. Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act reads:

3(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:-

.....

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

It is contended by the State that neither the complainant nor any one of the witnesses have spoken to about the utterances to the cast made by the

accused. Under such circumstances, there was a deletion of the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act and rightly too. Thus, the Court is

unable to see any lacuna or infirmity in the investigation so as to call for either re-investigation or further investigation in the case. Further, the

question of direction to the respondents 1 and 2 for payment of compensation would not also arise. Hence, the Court is unable to see any merit in

this petition.

In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is also dismissed.