1. The present appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.9.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Atrocity Case No.133 of 1998, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant No.1 to undergo S.I. for one month with a fine of Rs.250/, in default, to further undergo S.I. for 7 days, for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge was further pleased to convict and sentence the appellant No.1 to undergo S.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.250/, in default, to further undergo S.I. of seven days for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Caste and schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant No.2 was also sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/, in default, to further undergo S.I. of seven days for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Caste and schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and she was also ordered to undergo S.I. one month and fine of Rs.250/, in default, to further undergo S.I. for seven days for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the brother of the original complainant named Dharmeshbhai and daughter of the appellant No.1 named Jyotika, both went away from the house due to deep love and affection and they have registered the marriage on 1.11.1996. Thereafter, after a period of one month, they came back to the house of the original complainant and the said fact came to know by the appellants – original accused and the appellants started harassment to the complainant. The said daughter of the appellant No.1 had committed suicide. On 18.10.1998, keeping grudge against the complainant, the appellants abused about the community of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant lodged complaint against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1) (10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code
3. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, panchnama was drawn and accused – appellants were arrested. There was sufficient evidence against the appellant, chargesheet was filed.
4. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the appellants. The appellant – accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case against the appellant, the prosecution has produced documentary evidence and also examined 8 witnesses before the Sessions Court.
6. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellants – accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the appellants – accused has denied the case of the prosecution.
7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No.133 of 1998 vide order dated 6.9.2000 held the appellants – accused guilty to the charge levelled against them and sentenced them as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present appellants preferred this appeal. During the pendency of the Appeal, the appellant No.1 – Chandrikaben has expired. Her death certificate is produced, which is ordered to be taken on record. The appeal is abated against the appellant No.1.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Shirish Patel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there were several contradictions between the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and they were never proved, even though the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant accused guilty for the offence alleged and convicted the appellant. Therefore, the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeal. Learned advocate further submitted that lower Court has not properly appreciated and considered the Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Even the ingredients of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted to the case of the appellants. The oral evidence of P.W. 1 at Exhibit 30 and contents of the complaint at Exhibit 14 are not corroborated and the contents of complaint are not established. He also submitted that lower Court has not properly appreciated the oral evidence of P.W.2 Dharmeshkumar Babubhai Kapadia at Exhibit 15, P.W.3 Gajendrakumar Ishwarbhai Parmar at Exhibit 16, PW.4 Ratanben Babubhai at Exhibit 17 and P.W. 5 Kapilaben Gajendrabhai at Exhibit 18. He also submitted that the investigation was carried out by one Jaydevsinh Jitendrasinh Solanki and he stated in his deposition that the investigation was not carried out by the Dy. Supdtt. Of Police and on the date of investigation, he was holding the post of Inspector of Police. He also submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the powers to investigate the complaint under the Atrocity Act is given to only Dy. Supdtt. of Police and if the complaint is investigated by the Inspector of Police is violating the Rule. That fact has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge, while passing the judgment and order. Learned advocate submitted that the learned trial Judge considered the Rule 7 of the Atrocity Act but he convicted the appellant while passing the judgment and order. Therefore, when the investigation was carried out by the officer, who was holding the post of P.I. and he was below the rank of Dy. S.P., the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not just and proper. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing this Appeal.
10. The learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani for the State strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant. It was contended by him that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is just and proper and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the provision under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant. Therefore, judgment and order is required to be confirmed.
11. I have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both the sides. I have also perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and also perused the documentary as well as oral evidence led during the trial. It is true that from the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer, it appears that he was simply P.I. at the time of incident and as per the provisions of the Atrocity Act, the investigation is required to be carried out by the Officer who is Dy. S.P. or the officer, who is not below the rank of Dy. S.P. That issue is considered by the learned trial Judge while passing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Here in this case, the investigation was carried out by the P.I. and he is now Circle Inspector and therefore, the investigation as per provisions of Rules, is not just and proper and even though the learned trial Judge passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence without following the provisions of the Atrocity Rules. I have perused the provisions of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which is quoted as under :
“SECTION 504 : Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace:
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.”
12. In view of the above, the appeal is abated against the appellant No.1 Chandrikaben Bhailal Parsottambhai Patel, since she has expired. The appeal is allowed qua the appellant No.2 – Kaminiben Bhailalbhai Patel. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No.133 of 1998 dated 6.9.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rest of the judgment of the learned Sessions Court shall remain unaltered. Bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED, J.)