"Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act Will Not Attract Automatically": Supreme Court Considers Modifying Life Sentence Of Rape Convict

"Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act will not be attracted automatically because the victim belongs to such and such category. You have to establish that the ingredients of 3(2)(v) are made out", reiterated the Supreme Court on Monday.Section 3(2)(v) provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the IPC 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.The petitioner before the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was the sole accused tried for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for committing rape on the victim girl who is aged about 20 years and blind by birth, on 31.03.2011 at about 9:30 AM in her house. Vide judgment dated 19.02.2013, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 376(1) I.P.C. The accused was also concurrently sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. In August, 2019, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and the sentence.On Monday, the bench took note of a 2019 judgment of the top court, by a bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi, where the court had reduced the sentence of life imprisonment of a murder convict to the sentence already undergone, noting that "There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable""We will confirm the conviction but modify the sentence… 3(2)(v) is not established. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It was a heightened offence, but you have to establish that the ingredients of 3(2)(v) are made out ", said Justice Chandrachud at the outset."Nobody will ask (if the offence was committed against the victim on the ground that they are a member of an SC or a ST), it must be alleged in the FIR that the victim belonged to so-and-so and that is why the rape was committed! Only then is 3(2)(v) to be attracted. It will not be attracted automatically because the victim belongs to so-and-so", concurred Justice Shah.In appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court framed the point for determination as: "Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?""Before dealing as to whether an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is made out, it may be necessary to prove whether an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out...From the evidence of the witnesses stated above, we hold that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence... Having regard to the above, we feel that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-...", the High Court had ruled.The division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had recorded, "Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act are not attracted to the present facts of the case as the offence was not committed on the ground that the victim girl belongs to S.C. Caste""Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that the offence gets attracted if it is committed against a person knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member. Even otherwise still the offence under Section 376(1) I.P.C. is made out. In the result, we hold that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) of I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and as such, the judgment of the trial Court warrants no interference", the High Court had held in dismissing the appeal.In issuing notice on the SLP, the top court had confined to the following submission of the counsel for the petitioner- "Learned counsel submits that in view of the expression 'on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe' in Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ...

"Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act Will Not Attract Automatically": Supreme Court Considers Modifying Life Sentence Of Rape Convict

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

"Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act Will Not Attract Automatically": Supreme Court Considers Modifying Life Sentence Of Rape Convict

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers