Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Atrocities Case: Vetrivel vs. State (2022) INSC 722

LEGAL ISSUE: Reduction of sentence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal

Case Name: Vetrivel vs. State Represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr.

Judgment Date: 19 January 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 722

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can a sentence imposed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, be reduced based on the specific facts of the case, even when a conviction is upheld? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Vetrivel vs. State. The court examined whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under the Atrocities Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could be reduced, considering the circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment already served. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on 30th August 2014, where the appellant, Vetrivel, allegedly abused and intimidated the de facto complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste, in front of her tailoring shop. The appellant is a relative of the shop owner, while the de facto complainant rented the shop. The dispute arose from a quarrel between the children of the de facto complainant and Mekala, the appellant’s sister. The appellant allegedly supported Mekala and insisted that the de facto complainant vacate the shop. The prosecution alleged that the appellant used obscene words and casteist slurs, pulled the de facto complainant’s hair, and caused injury to her cheeks.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Court constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, convicted the appellant under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the first two offences and 1 year for the third offence, along with fines. The High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to 2 years. The Supreme Court issued a notice limited to the quantum of sentence.

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 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 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 punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The incident arose from a dispute over the shop premises occupied by the de facto complainant, and not due to caste-based animosity.
• The complaint was a false one because the appellant had insisted on the de facto complainant vacating the shop.
• The appellant had already served a substantial portion of his sentence (54 months and 25 days as of 23rd September 2021) and should be released considering the period already undergone.

State’s Arguments:

• The incident occurred in a public place and the appellant’s conduct of pulling the de facto complainant by her hair was highly objectionable.
• The High Court had already shown leniency by reducing the sentence to 2 years, and no further reduction should be granted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the issue of the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any authorities (cases or books) relied upon by the court.

Judgment

The Court considered the following aspects:

• The incident arose from a dispute over the shop premises, and there was a prior quarrel involving children of the de facto complainant and Mekala.
• The de facto complainant did not sustain any serious injuries.
• The appellant was 25 years old at the time of the incident, with no prior criminal record.
• The appellant had already served more than 9 months of his sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was influenced by a combination of factors, primarily focusing on the specific circumstances of the case and the appellant’s conduct. The Court acknowledged that the incident stemmed from a dispute over shop premises rather than pure caste-based animosity, and that the de facto complainant did not suffer serious injuries. The Court also considered the appellant’s age at the time of the incident, the absence of prior criminal records, and the fact that he had already served a significant portion of his sentence. This indicates a balanced approach, where the Court considered both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the appellant.

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.” 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.” Furthermore, the court observed, “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 Atrocities Act can be reduced based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
• The court considers factors such as the nature of the dispute, the severity of the injury, the age of the accused, and the period of imprisonment already served.
• The focus is on ensuring a balanced approach that considers both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s substantive sentence be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The appellant was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 within six weeks, with a default sentence of 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount is to be paid to the de facto complainant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific discussion on any amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the quantum of sentence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be reduced by the Supreme Court considering the facts of the case, the nature of the dispute, the severity of the injury, the age of the accused and the period of imprisonment already served. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the factors to be considered while determining the quantum of sentence in such cases.

Conclusion

In the case of Vetrivel vs. State, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the substantive sentence of the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The Court considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the dispute, the lack of serious injury to the complainant, the appellant’s age, and the period of imprisonment already served. This judgment highlights the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, where the court considers both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the accused.