Life sentence on charges under section 3(2) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act can't survive, but Supreme Court upheld sentence for rape
December 9, 2017
A Bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R. Banumathi in a Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 1182 of 2015, Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh upheld the sentence awarded to a rape convict, but set aside the life sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 3(2) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
The trial court vide its judgment dated 30.11.2007 convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(g), 323 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short 'the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act]. For conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 8,000/- with default clause and for conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause. The appellant was also imposed sentence of imprisonment for other offences under Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 8/9.12.1995, appellant
Asharfi and one Udai Bhan are alleged to have forcibly opened the door and
entered inside the house of a woman and Brij Lal and said to have committed rape
on the women. Brij Lal was kept away on the point of pistol. On raising alarm,
two neighbours came there and on seeing them, the accused persons ran away
threatening the witnesses. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant Brij
Lal, FIR was registered in Case Crime No.76 of 1996 under Sections
376/452/323/506 IPC and under Section 3(1) 12 SC/ST Act against appellant and
one Udai Bhan. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against
the appellant and the said Udai Bhan for the above said offences. As noted
above, the appellant and Udai Bhan were convicted for various offences by the
trial court. In the appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court, the
High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant and the said Udai Bhan.
The Supreme Court had appointed amicus curiae while hearing the appeal and has
heard the learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant.
The Court said that "So far as the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is
concerned, based upon the evidence of PW-3-Phoola Devi and PW-4 Brij Lal and the
medical evidence, both the courts below recorded concurrent findings that the
charge of rape has been proved. We are not inclined to interfere with the same
and also the sentence of ten years of imprisonment imposed upon him. We also
find no perversity with respect to the conviction and sentence of the appellant
with respect to other offences under Indian Penal Code."
As far as the conviction under Section 3(2) of the SC/ST Prevention of
Atrocities Act the court said that "The evidence and materials on record do
not show that the appellant had committed rape on the victim on the ground that
she belonged to Scheduled Caste. Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of
Atrocities Act can be pressed into service only if it is proved that the rape
has been committed on the ground that PW-3 Phoola Devi belonged to Scheduled
Caste community. In the absence of evidence proving intention of the appellant
in committing the offence upon PW-3-Phoola Devi only because she belongs to
Scheduled Caste community, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v)
of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act cannot be sustained. In the result,
the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the sentence
of life imprisonment imposed upon him are set aside and the appeal is partly
allowed."
Regarding conviction for rape the court said that: "So far as the conviction
of the appellant under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and other offences and sentence of
imprisonment imposed upon him are confirmed. As the appellant had already
undergone more than ten years, the appellant is ordered to be released forthwith
unless he is required in any other case."
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court dated 08.12.2017