Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Atrocities Case: Vetrivel vs. State (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 54

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can a sentence imposed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be reduced if the incident arose from a property dispute and the victim sustained no serious injuries? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Vetrivel vs. State. The court considered whether the High Court was correct in reducing the sentence to two years and whether further reduction was warranted. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on 30th August 2014, in front of a tailoring shop run by the de facto complainant and her husband. The appellant, a relative of the shop owner, had a dispute with the complainant’s children, which escalated when the complainant intervened. The appellant, who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, allegedly abused and intimidated the complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, using obscene language and casteist slurs. The appellant is also accused of physically assaulting the complainant by pulling her hair and causing injury to her cheek. The dispute arose because the appellant and his family insisted that the complainant vacate the shop. The complainant filed a complaint, leading to the appellant’s conviction under the Atrocities Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act), specifically Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), which deal with offences related to abusing and intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Additionally, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with voluntarily causing hurt, is also relevant.

✓ Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act states that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

✓ Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act states that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name, in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

✓ Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states that whoever, except in the case provided by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the incident arose out of a dispute over the shop premises occupied by the complainant. The appellant was insisting that the complainant vacate the shop, and the complaint was a result of this dispute.
• The appellant’s counsel submitted that as of 23rd September 2021, the appellant had already undergone a sentence of 54 months and 25 days. Given the time already served, the appellant should be released based on the sentence already undergone.

State’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the incident occurred in a public place and that the appellant’s conduct of pulling the complainant by her hair was highly objectionable.
• The State’s counsel contended that the High Court had already shown leniency by reducing the sentence to two years and that no further reduction was warranted.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument to consider the time already served and reduce the sentence based on that was a practical and humane approach.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act and Section 323 of the IPC was excessive, considering the circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the dispute and the injuries sustained by the complainant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
  • Section 3(1)(r): Deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a public place with the intent to humiliate.
  • Section 3(1)(s): Deals with abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in a public place.
• Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Section 323: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt.

Authorities Table:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [CITATION] and Indian Penal Code [CITATION] to determine the offenses committed by the appellant. The Court noted that while the offenses were established, the circumstances warranted a reduction in the sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was influenced by several factors:

• The incident arose from a dispute over the shop premises, indicating that the primary motive was not caste-based animosity.
• The complainant did not sustain serious injuries, which mitigated the severity of the offense.
• The appellant had already served a substantial portion of the sentence, which was a significant factor in reducing the sentence.
• The Court also noted that the minimum sentence of six months was not given with any reason by the Special Court and the High Court also did not give any reasons for fixing the quantum of sentence at 2 years.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered all aspects of the case, including the factual context and the legal provisions. The Court noted that the incident arose out of a dispute over shop premises and not solely due to caste-based animosity. The Court also took into account the fact that the complainant did not sustain serious injuries. The Court also considered that the appellant had already served a significant portion of the sentence. The Court reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

The Court stated, “The reason for the incident appears to be the dispute over the said shop.”

The Court also stated, “A perusal of the judgment of the learned Special Judge will show that the de facto complainant did not sustain any serious injury.”

The Court also stated, “Considering these facts and the fact that the appellant has already undergone a sentence for more than 9 months, this is a fit case where the substantive sentence should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.”

Key Takeaways

• The context of the dispute is crucial when determining the sentence in cases under the Atrocities Act.
• The severity of injuries sustained by the complainant is a significant factor in sentencing.
• Time already served by the accused should be considered when deciding on the quantum of sentence.
• Lower courts should give reasons for the quantum of punishment given to the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The substantive sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
• The appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 within six weeks.
• In default of payment of the fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
• The fine amount shall be paid to the added respondent (the complainant).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the sentence imposed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be reduced if the incident arose from a property dispute and the victim sustained no serious injuries. This judgment emphasizes the need to consider the context and circumstances of the case when determining the quantum of sentence. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the substantive sentence of the appellant to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The Court considered the factual context of the dispute, the lack of serious injury to the complainant, and the time already served by the appellant. The Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000, to be paid to the complainant, with a default imprisonment of three months. This judgment highlights the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, considering both the severity of the offense and the specific circumstances of the case.