Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction but Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (27 April 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 220

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, M R Shah, J

Can a person be convicted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if the prosecution fails to prove that the crime was committed solely because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the rape of a blind woman from a Scheduled Caste. The court upheld the conviction for rape under the Indian Penal Code but set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act due to lack of evidence proving the crime was committed specifically because of the victim’s caste. The judgment was authored by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justice M.R. Shah concurring.

Case Background

The appellant, Patan Jamal Vali, was accused of raping a blind woman (PW2) in Gajulapalli village. PW2 lived with her mother (PW1) and brother (PW3). The appellant was acquainted with PW2’s brothers and often visited their house. On March 31, 2011, while PW1 was at a public tap and her sons were nearby, the appellant allegedly entered their house, locked the door, and raped PW2, who was blind since birth. PW1, upon hearing PW2’s distress, rushed to the house with her husband and sons. They found PW2 bleeding and in a nude condition. The appellant was apprehended at the scene. PW2 stated that the appellant had inquired about her brothers, locked the door, and raped her. The police were informed, and PW2 was taken for a medical examination, which confirmed the sexual assault.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under the SC-ST (POA) Act-Cum-VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act and Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3, and the medical evidence. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirmed this conviction, noting the consistency in the testimonies and the corroborating medical evidence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, specifically challenging the conviction under the SC & ST Act.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves two legal provisions: Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, at the time of the incident, stated that:

“Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe… commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.”

Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, at the time of the incident, stated that:

“Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The primary argument of the appellant was that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act was not sustainable because the prosecution failed to prove that the rape was committed “on the ground that” the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
• The appellant contended that the trial court erred in holding that a life sentence was the norm and that there was discretion to award a lesser punishment.
• The appellant argued that the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was excessive, given the lack of evidence under the SC & ST Act.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The prosecution argued that the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, proving the rape beyond reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution contended that the High Court was correct in affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.
• The prosecution maintained that the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument regarding the interpretation of “on the ground that” in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was innovative, highlighting the need for a direct causal link between the crime and the victim’s caste for a conviction under the said provision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was sustainable in the absence of evidence proving that the offence was committed “on the ground that” the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the precedent set in Dinesh Alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 3 SCC 771]*, emphasizing that for Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to apply, the offence must be committed specifically because the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
• The Court followed the precedent set in Ramdas and Others v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 2 SCC 170]*, reiterating that the mere fact that a victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not automatically attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act in cases of sexual assault.
• The Court followed the precedent set in Ashrafi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 1 SCC 742]*, stating that a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act requires proof that the rape was committed solely because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
• The Court followed the precedent set in Khuman Singh v. State of MP [Criminal Appeal 1283 of 2019]*, stating that there must be evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste.
• The Court distinguished the case of Mange v. State of Haryana [(1979) 4 SCC 349]*, stating that the legal personhood of persons with disabilities cannot be premised on societal stereotypes of their supposed “inferiority.”
• The Court followed the precedent set in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bala [(2005) 8 SCC 1]*, reiterating that special and adequate reasons for imposing a sentence less than the minimum must be used sparingly.
• The Court followed the precedents set in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 2 SCC 175]*, State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa [(2000) 4 SCC 75]*, and State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar [(2008) 7 SCC 550]* reiterating that the factors such as the nature and gravity of the crime, the circumstances surrounding the sexual assault, the position of the victim, the role of the accused, and the possibility of rehabilitation are relevant for determining the quantum of punishment.
• The Court referred to Tekan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) [2014 Cri LJ 1409]* and Tekan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) [(2016) 4 SCC 461]*, highlighting the vulnerability of disabled women and the need for special rehabilitation schemes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the intersectional nature of the victim’s identity (being a woman, blind, and from a Scheduled Caste), the need for a direct causal link between the crime and the victim’s caste for a conviction under the SC/ST Act, and the gravity of the crime of rape. The court emphasized the importance of considering the unique vulnerabilities of women with disabilities and the need for a sensitive approach to their testimonies. The court also highlighted the limitations of a single-axis model of oppression in cases of intersectional discrimination.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects (40%). While the facts of the case were crucial in establishing the rape, the legal interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and the sentencing under Section 376 of the IPC were the primary drivers of the court’s final judgment.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, but ultimately rejected them, adhering to the precedent that requires a direct causal link between the crime and the victim’s caste. The court also considered the arguments for a lesser sentence under Section 376 of the IPC but rejected them due to the heinous nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The prosecution failed to establish that the offence was committed “on the ground that” the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste.
• The testimonies of the witnesses and the medical evidence proved the rape beyond reasonable doubt.
• The victim’s intersectional identity (being a woman, blind, and from a Scheduled Caste) was a significant factor in determining the gravity of the crime.
• The court emphasized the need for a sensitive approach to the testimonies of disabled witnesses.

“The experience of rape induces trauma and horror for any woman regardless of her social position in the society. But the experiences of assault are different in the case of a woman who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and has a disability because the assault is a result of the interlocking of different relationships of power at play.”

“As long as the testimony of such a witness otherwise meets the criteria for inspiring judicial confidence, it is entitled to full legal weight. It goes without saying that the court appreciating such testimony needs to be attentive to the fact that the witness’ disability can have the consequence of the testimony being rendered in a different form, relative to that of an able-bodied witness.”

“The nature and gravity of the offence in the present case is serious in itself and it is compounded by the position of PW2 who was a visually disabled woman. A heinous offence has been committed on a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste. The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be faulted.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment. Both judges concurred on the final decision.

The court’s reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented, the relevant legal provisions, and the precedents set by previous judgments. The court applied an intersectional lens to understand the unique vulnerabilities of the victim and the gravity of the crime. The court’s interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act highlights the need for a direct causal link between the crime and the victim’s caste, while also acknowledging the limitations of a single-axis model of oppression.

The judgment has potential implications for future cases, particularly those involving intersectional discrimination and violence. It emphasizes the need for courts to consider the unique vulnerabilities of marginalized communities and to adopt a sensitive approach to their testimonies. It also highlights the limitations of the current legal framework in addressing cases of intersectional oppression and the need for a more nuanced approach.

Key Takeaways

• For a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must prove that the crime was committed “on the ground that” the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. A mere knowledge of the victim’s caste is not sufficient.
• The testimonies of disabled witnesses should be given equal weight as that of able-bodied witnesses, provided they meet the criteria for inspiring judicial confidence.
• Courts must adopt an intersectional approach to understand the unique vulnerabilities of marginalized communities, such as women with disabilities from Scheduled Castes.
• The gravity of the crime of rape, especially against vulnerable victims, justifies a life sentence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
• The judgment highlights the limitations of a single-axis model of oppression and the need for a more nuanced approach to intersectional discrimination.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The National Judicial Academy and state judicial academies are requested to sensitize trial and appellate judges to deal with cases involving survivors of sexual abuse.
• Trained special educators and interpreters must be appointed to ensure the effective realization of the reasonable accommodations embodied in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.
• The National Crimes Record Bureau should seriously consider the possibility of maintaining disaggregated data on gender-based violence.
• Police officers should be provided sensitization, on a regular basis, to deal with cases of sexual violence against women with disabilities, in an appropriate way.
• Awareness-raising campaigns must be conducted, in accessible formats, to inform women and girls with disabilities, about their rights when they are at the receiving end of any form of sexual abuse.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the prosecution must prove that the offence was committed “on the ground that” the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. The mere fact that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe is not sufficient; there must be a direct causal link between the crime and the victim’s caste identity. The court also held that the testimony of a disabled witness should be given equal weight as that of an able-bodied witness, provided it meets the criteria for inspiring judicial confidence. The court further emphasized the importance of considering the intersectional identity of the victim while sentencing.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment does not change the previous position of law. However, it clarifies the interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the need for a direct causal link between the crime and the victim’s caste. It also underscores the importance of considering the intersectional nature of discrimination and the unique vulnerabilities of marginalized communities in cases of sexual assault. The court’s emphasis on the need for sensitization of judicial officers and police personnel also highlights the need for a more inclusive and sensitive approach to cases involving marginalized communities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction for rape under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, recognizing the gravity of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim. However, the court set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, due to the lack of evidence proving that the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The judgment emphasizes the need for a direct causal link between the crime and the victim’s caste for a conviction under the SC/ST Act and underscores the importance of considering the intersectional nature of discrimination in cases of sexual assault. The court’s directions for sensitization and data collection highlight the need for a more inclusive and sensitive approach to cases involving marginalized communities.