Hon. Shri S.K. Seth, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.01.1996 passed by Special Judge, Dewas in Special Trial No. 70/94. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:-
Section 147 IPC -6 months'' RI.
Section 506-B IPC -6 months'' RI.
Section 294 IPC -1 month''s RI.
Section (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act -6 months'' RI.
Facts in brief as unfolded before the trial Court are as under. On 15.06.1994 at about 1.30 in the afternoon, complainant Shivnarayan was intercepted by the appellants while the complainant was going home and he was abused, manhandled and threatened with dire consequences, if he failed to vote for Revaram, who was a candidate for the Office of Up-Sarpanch. The incident was witnessed by Harnarayan, Misrilal and Badriprasad, who intervened in the matter. A report was lodged by the complainant in police station Khategaon on the basis whereof a criminal case was registered against the appellants under sections 341, 294, 506, 147, 323 IPC read with section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). After completing the investigation, Challan was filed against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges, therefore, they were put to trial. During the pendency of the trial, an application was filed by the complainant u/s 320 Cr.P.C which was allowed by the trial Court, as a result, appellants were acquitted of the charges under sections 341 and 323 of the IPC. Considering the prosecution evidence, trial Court found appellants guilty of the offences punishable under sections 506-B, 147 and 323 IPC read with section 3 (1)(x) of the Act and sentenced each of them as stated herein above, hence this appeal.2. Learned counsel appearing for appellants raised two folded contentions. His first submission was that conviction of appellants u/s 3 (1)(x) of the Act is bad in law because of the breach of rule-7 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1995). In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Bharatsingh Vs. State of M.P reported in 2006 (4) M.P.L.J 171. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 is mandatory and breach thereof would vitiate the trial. Learned Single Judge in Bharatsingh (supra) had considered the provision of Rule 7 in the light of various decisions and thereafter held that Rule 7 is mandatory and an offence punishable under the provision of the Act can be investigated only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police specifically appointed by the State Government. In the present case, record shows that investigation was not done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995. Thus in view of the manifest error, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of appellants u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Act. This aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the trial Court while holding the appellants guilty u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Act is set aside.
3. Now coming to the conviction u/s 506-B, 147 & 294 of the IPC, learned counsel submitted that appellants have no previous enmity with the complainant. The genesis of the incident lies in the election or village politics, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case prayed that the jail sentence of the appellants be modified to the sentence of fine. Considering the fact that the incident took place way back in the year 1994 and appellants were on bail during trial as well as in this appeal, no useful purpose would be served by sending them to jail at this distant point of time. They are all leading normal life peacefully and asking them to undergo jail sentence may rekindle the fire of retaliation. Considering all these facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, imposition of fine instead of jail sentence which is permissible under the law would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under sections 506-B, 147 and 294 IPC, we direct that each of the appellants instead of undergoing the penal servitude, as directed/ordered by the trial Court, shall pay a fine of Rs. 750/- each for each of the offences under sections 294, 506-B and 147 of the IPC within a period of one month. In the event of failure to pay the fine amount, the defaulting appellants shall undergo RI for one month for each offence, as the case may be. Out of the fine amount so deposited, the complainant shall be paid a total sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extend indicated herein above. The appellants are on bail. On payment of fine amount, the bail bonds of the appellants shall stand discharged.
