Mere proof of victim’s caste not enough for SC/ST Act conviction: SC
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in a gang rape and murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the offence was committed with knowledge of the victim’s caste.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran observed that mere proof of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the SC/ST Act.
"Though the prosecution has proved the caste of the victim/deceased, there is nothing to indicate that the accused knew the caste of the victim or even that they were in any manner acquainted with the victim, to be aware of her caste status," the bench noted.
The court stressed that knowledge of the victim’s caste is an essential ingredient of offences under the SC/ST Act. It held that the crime in the present case could not be said to have been committed with such knowledge, and therefore, no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out.
The Supreme Court also expressed reservations over the Telangana High Court’s reliance on certain circumstances to uphold the conviction under the SC/ST Act. It rejected reliance on a confession allegedly made before a witness summoned to the police station, observing that no reliance can be placed on a confession made while in police custody.
The bench further dismissed the prosecution’s attempt to treat recoveries as admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act when the material objects were allegedly seized from the accused at the time of arrest.
"When the material objects could have been seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by the police, the attempt to convert it as a recovery under Section 27 cannot at all be accepted," the apex court said.
While upholding the convictions for gang rape and murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of a complete chain of circumstantial and forensic evidence, including DNA profiling, the court set aside the conviction under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
On the quantum of sentence, the bench noted that the trial court had originally awarded the death penalty, which was later commuted by the Telangana High Court to life imprisonment with a rider that the appellant would remain in custody “till the last breath, without remission.”
The Supreme Court considered mitigating circumstances, including that the appellant was around 40 years old at the time of the offence, had a family comprising his wife, four children, and aged parents, and was the sole earning member.
The court also noted that the appellant had no prior criminal record, posed no grave danger to society, and was not beyond reformation.
The bench ruled that the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category, warranting the death penalty. It held that life imprisonment could be modified to 25 years without remission, partly allowing the appeal.
With IANS inputs