Shiv Ram vs State Of C.G.

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-

with default stipulation

Under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-

with default stipulation

Apart from the above, it is also clear that the investigation has been done by Santosh Singh (PW5), who is a Sub-Inspector, that is to say, he is an",

officer of below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. As per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995, the investigation must have been done by a police",

officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 reads as under:,

“7. Investigating Officer.â€"(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy,

Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/ Superintendent of Police,

after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines",

within the shortest possible time.,

(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the,

report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government.,

(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officerÂinÂcharge of Prosecution",

and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer.â€​,

In 1999 Cri.L.J. 2918 (D. Ramalinga Reddy @ D. Babu v. State of A.P.), it was observed thus:",

“7. There is no dispute that the present case was investigated by a SubÂInspector of Police and not by an Officer envisaged under Rule 7. Since,

the investigation itself has been conducted by an officer who was not authorised in law to conduct the investigation the whole trial is vitiated. The,

same view has been expressed in a judgment of Madras High Court reported in N. Ramu v. Supdt. of Police Villupuram, 1998 Mad LJR (Crl) 132.",

Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under S. 3(1)(xi) of SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has to be set aside and is",

accordingly set aside and the accusedÂ​appellant is acquitted of the charges under the Act.â€​,

In 2009 AIR SCW 5335 (State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh), it was observed as under:",

“6. By virtue of its enabling power it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue notification conferring power of investigation of,

cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for different areas in the police districts. Rule 7 of the Rules,

provided rank of investigation officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as,

investigating officer. The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible",

conclusion that the investigation to an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when,

the offence complained are both under the IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a,

competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the,

Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in appropriate Court for the offences punishable under the IPC,

notwithstanding investigation and the charge sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking,

cognizance of that offence.â€​,

Thus, in view of the clear mandate of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 and the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is only the officer",

not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is competent to investigate the offence under the Act of 1989. In the instant case, undisputedly,",

the entire incident has been investigated by Sub-Inspector Santosh Singh (PW5), which is flagrant violation of the legal provisions and it renders the",

entire trial as vitiated.,

Therefore, in the premises of aforestated, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 are",

set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed thereunder, but the conviction imposed upon him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is",

affirmed.,

So far as sentence for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Appellant has remained in custody for about 1",

month. He is facing the lis since 2001. He has no known criminal antecedent. Therefore, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if he is",

sentenced with the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is affirmed. Ordered accordingly.,

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.",

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,