The background facts in nutshell are that deceased Baisakhu, in a drunken state met Kamla Prajapati on road to ward number 10, Pasia, Thana Anuppur, Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh.
This question has been examined by a twoJudge Bench of this Court in State of M.P. Vs.
Information of unnatural death was recorded by police and postmortem on the body of the deceased was companyducted which proved death was unnatural and caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.
The trial Court took companynizance of the matter and Special Case No.
The preliminary investigation companyfirmed that the deceased was last seen with the present respondents.
The dead body of Baisakhu was recovered on 14 th July, 2011.
The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer in charge 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.
The provisions of the Code shall, so far as may be, apply to the exercise of the powers by an officer under subsection 1 .
Baisakhu stated that he wanted to have liquor so leaving him there, Kamla Prajapati returned back.
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.
Rule 7 of the Rules 1995 provides rank of investigation officer to be number below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Upon insistence of deceased Baisakhu, Kamla Prajapati took him to the house of Nasru where accused Babbu Rathore was drinking liquor.
An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer in holding investigation in reference to the offences companymitted under any provisions of the Act, 1989 but the question arose for companysideration is that apart from the offences companymitted under the Act 1989, if the offence companyplained are both under the IPC and the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act, 1989 and the investigation being made by a companypetent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter being referred to as the Code , the offences under IPC can be quashed and set aside for number investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 by a companypetent police officer.
By virtue of its enabling power, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue numberification companyferring power of investigation of cases by numberified police officer number below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Rule 7.
The investigating officer so appointed under sub rule 1 shall companyplete the investigation on top priority 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.
When Ujaria Bai, the wife of deceased, went to house of Nasru to inquire about her husband, then Nasru told her that deceased Baisakhu had left with Babbu Rathore.
Kamla Prajapati took him to his house, but the deceased Baisakhu stated that he had to return two hundred fifty rupees to Nasru and requested him to take to his place.
37/11 was registered.
37/11, statement of the material witnesses PW 2 Narsu, PW 4 Kamla Prajapati and PW 5 Uparia Bai, wife of deceased Baisakhu were recorded.
After registration of FIR, investigation was companyducted by the SubInspector and chargesheet came to be filed against the present respondents for offences punishable under Section 302/34, 404/34 of the IPC and Section 3 2 v of the Act, 1989.
Investigating officer 1 An offence companymitted under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer number below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
During proceedings in Special Case No.
Rastogi, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 9th May, 2019 companyfirming Order of the trial Judge dated 24th July, 2015 whereby the respondents have Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date 2020.01.17 been discharged from the offences under Sections 302/34, 404/34 162023 IST Reason of the IPC and Section 3 2 v of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 hereinafter being referred to as Act, 1989 at the advanced stage of the trial when almost all the material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution which has given rise to this appeal.
