Delve into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the court in a case revolving around a dispute over shop premises. The court’s decision to reduce the appellant’s sentence sheds light on the application of minimum sentencing laws and the nuances of the legal framework governing such instances. Explore the complexities of the case and the court’s in-depth examination of the circumstances at play.
Facts
- Mekala and the children of the de facto complainant engaged in a quarrel on 30 August 2014 in front of the tailoring shop rented by the de facto complainant.
- The appellant, who is not a member of a scheduled caste or tribe, allegedly abused and intimidated the de facto complainant, who is a member of a scheduled caste.
- The shop in question was rented from Chinnathambi, the owner, by the de facto complainant and her husband, who is the brother of the owner.
- The prosecution alleges that the appellant used obscene words and insulted the de facto complainant during the incident.
- The appellant, who is the brother of Mekala, insisted that the de facto complainant vacate the shop, supporting Mekala when questioned.
- Appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for first two offences.
- Sentence reduced to two years by the Special Court.
- Appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the third offence.
- Appellant also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.
- In default of fine payment, appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.
- High Court confirmed the conviction.
- Appellant’s conviction for all three offences confirmed in appeal.
- In default of fine payment, appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- The appellant caught hold of the de facto complainant and pulled her by holding her hair, causing injury to her cheeks.
- The High Court reduced the sentence to 2 years, showing some leniency.
- The incident stemmed from a dispute over the shop premises held by the de facto complainant.
- Allegation that the appellant and his family members insisted the de facto complainant to vacate her shop.
- The reason for the incident was a dispute over the said shop.
- The offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of Atrocities Act carry a minimum sentence of 6 months to a maximum of 5 years and fine.
- The appellant came to the rescue of Mekala during the incident.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- Special Judge imposed a minimum sentence based on the appellant’s age and other circumstances.
- The High Court did not provide reasons for the 2-year sentence.
- No reasons were given for the 3-year rigorous imprisonment punishment.
- The de facto complainant did not sustain any serious injury during the incident.
- She was examined by a doctor who confirmed that she did not suffer any injury.
- The appellant was 25 years old at the time of the offence with no criminal antecedents on record.
- The substantive sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a total fine of Rs. 25,000 payable within six weeks.
- The quarrel led to a demand for the surrender of the shop premises by the appellant on behalf of the owner.
Decision
- Substantive sentence reduced to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment
- Fine of Rs.25,000/- to be paid within 6 weeks
- In default of fine payment, 3 months rigorous imprisonment
- Fine amount to be paid to the added respondent
- Pending applications disposed of
Case Title: VETRIVEL Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (2022 INSC 72)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000106-000106 / 2022
