HC acquits rape convict of charges under SC/ST Act; cites amendments in Act, Supreme Court judgment

Acquitting the accused of charges under Atrocities Act, the HC bench also ordered to free him from jail if his custody is not required in any other offence and to refund the fine that he may have deposited under the Atrocities Act.

The victim was a minor at the time while Machhi-Patel was a van driver who used to drop her to school.

The HC bench observed that the victim did not state in her testimony that the accused raped her because she was from SC/ST community. The court also observed that the victim’s parents nowhere stated that the accused committed rape upon their daughter intentionally because of her caste.
Besides, the court took note of the investigating officer’s testimony and stated that it, “…does not throw any light on the issue whether the offence was committed upon the victim because she belongs to SC/ST Caste.”
It further stated that the investigating officer did not properly investigate to prove that the accused does not belong to the SC/ST community.
The HC bench observed, “The court below (Sessions court), while convicting the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act), has not properly appreciated the evidence and failed to assign sound and cogent reasons of his conclusion that why the offence under the provision of SC/ST Act is proved.”

The accused’s lawyer had argued that, “… the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has not been substantiated by the prosecution, in as much as, there is no evidence to prove that the accused was aware about the caste of the victim…”

The HC also reproduced the Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act which reads, “commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person or property [knowing 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 court further pointed out in the judgment that Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act was amended in 2016.

As per the amendment, the words, “….on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” have been substituted with the words “…knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe”.

The HC stated that in the present case, the unamended Section 3(2)(v) is applicable as the alleged offence was committed on January 19, 2013, before the amendment.

The court then stated, “In such circumstances, in order to establish an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act), the prosecution is required to prove that the offence is committed on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”

The HC bench cited a Supreme Court judgment of 2017, deciding a criminal appeal of 2015, in which the apex court interpreted unamended Section 3(2)(v) and said, “…the statute laid stress on the intention of the accused in committing such offence and provisions can be pressed into service only (if) it is proved that the offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belonged to SC/ST community and in absence of evidence proving intention of the accused in committing the offence, upon the victim only because she belongs to SC/ST community, the conviction cannot be sustained.”

The HC bench also cited a couple of other judgments of the SC wherein it reiterated the same view.

The HC bench, eventually, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s judgment that convicted the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The court also ordered to refund the amount of fine, if deposited by the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

The HC bench also ordered to set the accused free if his custody is not required in any other offence.

Before that, the court observed, “…in view of the settled legal position of law, there is nothing on record to show that the offence was committed because of the victim belonged (sic) to SC/ST caste.”

About the case

As per the complaint, Machhi-Patel took the girl to a secluded place on January 19, 2013, and raped her. Later, he dropped her home. The victim’s parents approached the police and an FIR was registered on January 21, 2013, at Bharuch City Police Station.
A Sessions court eventually convicted the accused for offences levelled against him such as abduction, rape, unnatural sex under the provisions of the IPC, POCSO Act and Atrocities Act. Under IPC and POCSO Act, the convict was sentenced to maximum 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 9,000 was imposed on him. Under the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act, Machhi-Patel was awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 was imposed on him.

Machhi-Patel challenged the conviction before the HC. But his counsel did not press the appeal as far as his conviction under the provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act since he had already undergone the imprisonment for the same. However, the accused’s lawyer argued that the trial court had committed a serious error in holding him guilty of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.