Date of the Judgment: 8 December 2017
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J. and R. Banumathi, J.
Can a conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be upheld if the prosecution fails to prove that the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case, examining the intersection of rape and caste-based discrimination. The bench, comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, delivered the judgment, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on the night of December 8/9, 1995. It is alleged that Asharfi (the appellant) and one Udai Bhan forcibly entered the house of Phoola Devi (PW-3) and Brij Lal (PW-4). Asharfi is accused of raping Phoola Devi while Udai Bhan allegedly held Brij Lal at gunpoint. Upon hearing the commotion, neighbors Rassu (PW-1) and Baghraj (PW-2) arrived, causing the accused to flee, but not before threatening the witnesses. Brij Lal filed a complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 76 of 1996 against Asharfi and Udai Bhan under Sections 376, 452, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Night of 8/9 December 1995 | Alleged incident of rape and forced entry at the house of PW-3 and PW-4. |
| 1996 | FIR No. 76 of 1996 registered against Asharfi and Udai Bhan. |
| 30 November 2007 | Trial court convicts Asharfi for offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(g), 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. |
| 29 January 2013 | Allahabad High Court affirms the conviction and sentence of Asharfi. |
| 8 December 2017 | Supreme Court partially allows the appeal, setting aside conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted Asharfi and Udai Bhan for various offenses. Asharfi was convicted under Sections 450, 376(2)(g), and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Allahabad High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. Asharfi then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves several key legal provisions:
- Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of rape committed by a group of persons.
- Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of house-trespass in order to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment for life.
- Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section, at the time of the incident, stipulated that an offense punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more committed against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, would be an offense under this Act. The section was amended by Act 1 of 2016, which changed the requirement from “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” to “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”.
Arguments
The learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant argued that while the rape was proven, there was no evidence to suggest it was committed because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The core argument was that the prosecution failed to establish the specific intent required under the unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is sustainable in the absence of evidence proving the intention of the appellant in committing the offence upon PW-3 only because she belongs to Scheduled Caste community?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is sustainable in the absence of evidence proving the intention of the appellant in committing the offence upon PW-3 only because she belongs to Scheduled Caste community? | Not Sustainable | The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the rape was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The unamended Section 3(2)(v) required proof of this specific intent. |
Authorities
The court did not rely on any authorities in the judgment.
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the rape was committed, but not on the grounds that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. | The Court agreed that the prosecution failed to prove that the rape was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. |
| Appellant’s submission that the prosecution failed to prove the specific intent required under the unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. | The Court agreed that the unamended Section 3(2)(v) required proof of specific intent to commit the crime because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. |
The Court held that the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and other related offenses was valid and upheld the sentence of ten years of imprisonment. However, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was set aside.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific wording of the unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which required the prosecution to prove that the offense was committed “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” The Court emphasized that mere knowledge of the victim’s caste was insufficient; the prosecution had to demonstrate that the crime was motivated by the victim’s caste identity.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on the specific intent required by the unamended Section 3(2)(v) | 60% |
| Lack of evidence to prove the crime was motivated by caste | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
Incident of rape on Phoola Devi (PW-3) and forced entry.
Conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act by lower courts.
Supreme Court examines evidence for specific intent under unamended Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
Court finds no evidence that the rape was committed *because* the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is set aside; conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC upheld.
The court reasoned that while the act of rape was proven, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the crime was committed because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The unamended provision of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, required that the offense be committed “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” The court noted that the evidence did not indicate that the appellant had committed the rape to belittle the victim due to her caste.
The court stated:
“The evidence and materials on record do not show that the appellant had committed rape on the victim on the ground that she belonged to Scheduled Caste.”
“Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act can be pressed into service only if it is proved that the rape has been committed on the ground that PW-3 Phoola Devi belonged to Scheduled Caste community.”
“In the absence of evidence proving intention of the appellant in committing the offence upon PW-3-Phoola Devi only because she belongs to Scheduled Caste community, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act cannot be sustained.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proving specific intent under the unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Mere knowledge of the victim’s caste is not sufficient to secure a conviction under the unamended Section 3(2)(v); the crime must be motivated by the victim’s caste identity.
- The Court upheld the conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the distinction between the offenses.
Directions
The Supreme Court ordered the release of the appellant as he had already undergone more than ten years of imprisonment unless he was required in any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that under the unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the prosecution must prove that the offense was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. This decision clarifies the specific intent required under the unamended provision and highlights the distinction between the offense of rape and the offense under the SC/ST Act.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while upholding the conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The decision underscores the necessity of proving specific intent in cases of caste-based discrimination and clarifies the legal requirements under the unamended provisions of the SC/ST Act.