Case Title: Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court questioned earlier decisions that construed Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to suggest that the act should have been committed "only because the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste."
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that this provision will apply as long as caste identity is one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence. To deny the protection of Section 3 (2) (v) on the premise that the crime was not committed against an SC & ST person solely based on their caste identity, the court said, is to deny how social inequalities function cumulatively.
The bench, however, did not refer the matter to a larger bench because it determined that the evidence in the present instance does not demonstrate that the offence in the present case was committed because the person is a member of an SC or ST.
The bench was examining an appeal filed by one Patan Jamal Vali, the lone accused tried for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for perpetrating rape on the victim girl, who is around 20 years old and blind by birth, on 31.03.2011 at around 9:30 AM in her house, which the High Court had affirmed.
The use of "the" before "ground" does not always imply that the offence should have been committed only on that basis.
The court stated that under Section 3(2)(v), an enhanced punishment of life in prison plus a fine is imposed where the following conditions are met: (i) The offence is committed by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (ii) The offence arises under the Penal Code and is against a person or property and is punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more; and (iii) The offence is committed "on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe" or such property belongs to such a person.
The court highlighted the decisions in Dinesh Alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan and Ramdas and Others v. State of Maharashtra, in which it was stated that simply because a female belonged to the SC & ST community, the provisions of the SC & ST Act would not be applied in a case of sexual assault.
"...A true reading of Section 3(2)(v) would entail that conviction under this provision can be sustained as long as caste identity is one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence. In the view that we ultimately take, a reference of these decisions to a larger bench, in this case, is unnecessary. We keep that open and the debate alive for a later date and case," the bench observed.