PATAN JAMAL VALI versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 27-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
PATAN JAMAL VALI
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No 452 of 2021)
APRIL 27, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M R SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 376 – Offence of rape – Prosecution case that appellant
committed rape of a blind Scheduled Caste woman in her own house
– Appellant known to the victim and her family – Mother and her
sons found the victim in nude condition, bleeding from her genitals
– Appellant apprehended when trying to escape – Conviction of
the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST
Act and s. 376(1) by courts below – Imposition of life imprisonment
for each of the offences, which were to run concurrently – On appeal,
held: Nature and circumstances in which the offence has been
committed shows that the appellant took advantage of the victim
being blind – Testimonies of the victim and her mother clear and
consistent, and corroborated by the evidence of brother, aunt of
the victim and the neighbor – Medical evidence and the deposition
of doctor clearly established that the victim was sexually assaulted
– Appellant was apprehended at the spot in close proximity of the
commission of the offence – Thus, the commission of offence
u/s.376(1) by the appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt – No
evidence led to prove that the offence was committed on the ground
that she belongs to a Scheduled caste within the meaning of s.3(2)(v)
of the SC and ST Act– However, the fact that the victim belonged to
a Scheduled Caste is an important factor to the sentencing process
for an offence u/s.376 – Appellant was a mature individual known
to victim’s family and committed heinous offence on a Scheduled
Caste woman – Thus, the conviction of the appellant for an offence
punishable u/s. 376(1) and the sentence of life imprisonment upheld
– However, conviction for an offence u/s.3(2)(v) and the sentence
imposed is set aside– Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 – s.3(2)(v).
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 470
470
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
s. 376(1) – Punishment under – Amendments to s. 376(1) –
Parliament sought to take a tougher stand on crime against women
and limited the discretion of the judiciary regarding imposition of
sentences for offences involving rape – By Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 2013, minimum punishment of seven years and a maximum
punishment of life imprisonment provided, without any exceptions
for reduction of sentence – Thereafter, by the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 2018, further amendment to s. 376, by which the
minimum punishment enhanced to ten years, with the maximum
punishment remaining the same.
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989:
s.3(2)(v)(as it stood then) – Interpretation of – Held:
Interpretation of s. 3(2)(v) to mean that the offence should have
been committed “only on the ground that the victim was a member
of the Scheduled Caste”, is debatable –Statute uses the words “on
the ground’ but the juxtaposition of “the” before “ground” does
not invariably mean that the offence ought to have been committed
only on that ground – Reading the expression “only” would be to
add a restriction which is not found in the statute, it would dilute
the statute–To deny the protection of s.3(2)(v) on the premise that
the crime was not committed against an SC & ST person solely on
the ground of their caste identity is to deny how social inequalities
function in a cumulative fashion –It is to grant impunity to
perpetrators–It cannot be said that there is no requirement to
establish a causal link between the harm suffered and the ground,
but it is to recognize that how a person was treated or impacted was
a result of interaction of multiple grounds or identities – True reading
of s.3(2)(v) would entail that conviction can be sustained as long
as caste identity is one of the grounds for the occurrence of the
offence.
s. 3(2)(v) – Prosecution case that appellant committed rape
of a blind schedule caste girl – Incident occurred in 2011 –
Conviction of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 3(2)(v) and
s. 376(1) IPC by courts below – On appeal, held: Both the Sessions
Judge as well as the High Court failed to notice the crucial ingredient
of s. 3(2)(v)(as it stood then) – No separate evidence led by the
prosecution to show that the accused committed the offence on the
PATAN JAMAL VALI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.