Supreme Court reduces sentence in Atrocities case: Vetrivel vs. State (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 47

Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J., Abhay S. Oka, J.

Can a sentence imposed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be reduced based on the circumstances of the case? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in the matter of Vetrivel vs. State Represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr., where the court reduced the sentence of the accused while upholding the conviction. The case revolved around a dispute between the appellant and the de facto complainant, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The court considered the factual matrix of the case and reduced the sentence imposed by the lower courts. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the opinion authored by 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 de facto complainant. The appellant’s sister, Mekala, had a quarrel with the de facto complainant’s children. When the de facto complainant intervened, the appellant allegedly supported Mekala and insisted that the de facto complainant vacate the shop. The de facto complainant alleged that the appellant abused her using obscene words and casteist slurs, pulled her hair, and caused injury to her cheeks. The de facto complainant sought action against the appellant for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Indian Penal Code.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

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

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The incident arose out of a dispute regarding the shop held by the de facto complainant.
• The complaint was a false one, filed because the appellant insisted on the de facto complainant vacating the shop.
• The appellant had already undergone a significant portion of his sentence.
• The Court should consider the period of sentence already undergone and release the appellant.

State’s Arguments:

• The incident occurred in a public place.
• The appellant engaged in objectionable conduct by pulling the de facto complainant’s hair.
• The High Court had already shown leniency by reducing the sentence to two years.
• No further leniency should be shown by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant could be reduced considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of sentence already undergone.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This provision deals with intentional insult or intimidation to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public view.
• Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This provision deals with abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code: This provision deals with voluntarily causing hurt.

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 legal provisions as follows:

• Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: The Court noted that the minimum sentence for this offence is 6 months, which may extend to 5 years, along with a fine.
• Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: The Court noted that the minimum sentence for this offence is 6 months, which may extend to 5 years, along with a fine.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code: The Court considered this provision in relation to the offense of voluntarily causing hurt to the de facto complainant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was influenced by several factors. The court considered that the incident arose from a dispute over a shop, not solely from caste-based animosity. The court also noted that the de facto complainant did not sustain serious injuries and that the appellant was 25 years old at the time of the incident, with no prior criminal record. The court weighed the fact that the appellant had already served a considerable portion of his sentence. The court also considered the fact that the High Court had already reduced the sentence from 3 years to 2 years. The court, therefore, decided to further reduce the sentence to 1 year, considering all these factors.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects, such as the nature of the dispute and the lack of serious injury, played a significant role in the court’s decision to reduce the sentence. The legal aspects, such as the provisions of the Atrocities Act and the Indian Penal Code, provided the framework for the court’s analysis. The ratio of fact to law in this case can be estimated as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the submissions of the appellant and reduced the sentence to one year. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had already undergone a sentence for more than 9 months.

The court stated, “Even according to the prosecution case, before the incident, there was a quarrel involving the children of the de facto complainant and the said Mekala. Moreover, the quarrel led to the demand for the surrender of the shop premises by the appellant on behalf of the owner of the premises.”

The court also noted, “A perusal of the judgment of the learned Special Judge will show that the de facto complainant did not sustain any serious injury. In fact, she was taken to the hospital and was examined by a doctor (PW8). Though it is stated by PW8 that the de facto complainant was admitted to the hospital, PW8 has clearly stated that she did not suffer any injury.”

The court further added, “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

• Sentences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be reduced based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
• The courts will consider the nature of the dispute, the severity of the injury, the age and background of the accused, and the period of sentence already undergone.
• The Supreme Court can further reduce sentences imposed by the High Courts, if the circumstances warrant it.

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 fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
• The fine amount shall be paid to the de facto complainant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be upheld, the sentence can be reduced based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the dispute, the severity of the injury, the age and background of the accused, and the period of sentence already undergone. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In Vetrivel vs. State, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the substantive sentence of the appellant to one year of rigorous imprisonment, while upholding the conviction. The Court considered the nature of the dispute, the lack of serious injury, the appellant’s age, and the sentence already served. The court also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000. This judgment highlights the court’s willingness to consider the specific facts and circumstances of a case while determining the appropriate sentence, even under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.