In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment on enhancing punishment under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case involved a convicted individual and the State of Madhya Pradesh, where the court carefully reviewed the evidence and applicable laws. The judgment sets a precedent for cases involving offenses against marginalized communities, providing clarity on the law’s application.
Facts
- Deceased Veer Singh objected to the appellant-accused leaving his buffaloes for grazing in the field.
- Appellant-accused became furious and started abusing the deceased based on their castes.
- Appellant-accused attacked the deceased with an axe, causing him to fall down.
- Subsequently, the appellant-accused allegedly gave two-three blows on the head of the deceased with the axe.
- Complainant Rajaram (PW-1) lodged the Dehati Nalishi/complaint leading to the registration of FIR against the appellant-accused.
- Dr. Pradeep Sharma (PW-5) conducted the post-mortem and found six injuries on the head of the deceased Veer Singh.
- The High Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with a life imprisonment sentence.
- The High Court found that the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate did not impact the prosecution’s case.
- In the case of the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it was determined that the deceased belonged to the Khangar Caste, a Scheduled Caste.
- The appellant-accused scolded the deceased, mentioning his Khangar Caste, after the deceased objected to the act of leaving cattle in his field, leading to the prosecution establishing the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
- The High Court upheld the imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant and saw no need for interference.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Issue
- Whether the appellant-accused intentionally caused the death of deceased Veer Singh
- Whether the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is sustainable
- Whether the act of the appellant-accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Arguments
- Dr. J.P. Dhanda appeared on behalf of the appellant
- Ms. Pragati Neekhra appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh
- The impugned judgment, evidence, and other materials on record were perused
Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
Analysis
- The weapon used by the appellant was an axe and the injuries were inflicted on the vital part of the body, indicating knowledge that the injuries could cause death.
- The appellant called the deceased by his Caste name ‘Khangar’ during a sudden quarrel over grazing buffaloes.
- Eyewitnesses consistently stated that the appellant abused the deceased based on his caste and attacked him with an axe when the deceased objected to grazing buffaloes in his field.
- The conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was sustained based on evidence of caste-based abuse and the nature of the attack using an axe.
- The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC due to the sudden nature of the fight and lack of premeditation.
- The appellant caused six head injuries to the deceased in a sudden fight, leading to the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
- The altercation arose over a trivial issue of grazing buffaloes, escalating into a fatal confrontation with caste-based abuses.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked in specific circumstances of causing death without premeditation, in a sudden fight, without undue advantage or cruel manner, and the fight being with the person killed.
- Section 3(2)(v) of the Act states the punishment for committing any offense under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more against a person or property knowing they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
- Offenders not being members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are subject to punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act if they commit such offenses.
- The application of Section 3(2)(v) requires that the offence must have been committed against a person because of their Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status.
- In the case at hand, there was no evidence to establish that the rape was committed on the victim based on her Scheduled Caste status.
- Without evidence to support this requirement, Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act would not be applicable, leading to a lesser sentence.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that for Section 3(2)(v) to apply, the offence must be committed against the victim because of their Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe membership.
- The Act aims to provide enhanced punishment for offences under the Indian Penal Code against Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members knowing their status.
- The offence was not committed solely based on the victim being a member of the Scheduled Caste.
- Conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC has been modified to Section 304 Part II IPC.
- The appellant has served over twelve years of actual sentence in jail as per the jail certificate.
- As of the current date, the appellant has served over thirteen years of the sentence in jail.
Decision
- The appellant’s conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside, and he is acquitted of the charge.
- The conviction under Section 302 IPC is modified to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
- The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already served.
- The appeal is partly allowed, and the appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Case Title: KHUMAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001283-001283 / 2019
