Site icon Legal Vidhiya

PATAN JAMAL VALI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2021)

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love
CITATIONAIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 2190
DATE OF JUDGEMENT27 April 2021
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLANTPatan Jamal Vali
RESPONDENTState of Andhra Pradesh
BENCHM. R. Shah, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

INTRODUCTION

The case of Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh states about appeal filed by appellant aggrieved by the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh which upheld the charges against the appellant and convicted him. This is a rape case of a blind victim.  

FACTS

  1. PW2 was blind who lived with her mother PW1 and brother PW3. The appellant had been working for two years prior the incident with PW1’s two sons PW3 and LW5 because of which the appellant regularly visited PW1’s home.
  2. At 9 am of 31 March 2011, PW1 was carrying out her home chores at a public tap and her sons were cutting firewood. Appellant approached PW1 to which she asked him to wait till the wood cutting work is finished.
  3. After 30 minutes, PW1 hears PW2’s distressed voice. When she hurried to home she found the door locked from inside. Even her husband and sons hurriedly came to home. The appellant then opened the door and attempted to make an escape but was incapable. 
  4. When PW1 entered the home, she saw PW2 naked, laying on ground and bleeding heavily from her genital area. Her clothing was ripped and bloodied. PW2 was questioned to which she admitted that the appellant had came home and asked where her bothers are, he then locked the door, fell on her, gagged and raped her.
  5. PW9, a sub-inspector of police reached the location at 10 am when PW4, a cousin of PW1 gave him a call. PW1 gave police a written report recorded as Crime No. 28/2011.
  6. PW10, a civil surgeon at district hospital, examined PW2 when PW11 took her to the government hospital. The reports stated the blindness of the victim and other explanation that pointed out the condition of victim because of the rape incident and the same was used by the Sessions Judge and High Court Judge for examination.
  7. The prosecution examined the witnesses from PW1 to PW11. The appellant was also examined under the Section 313 of the CrPC. 

ISSUES

  1. Whether the Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1981 will be applicable in this case?
  2. Whether the Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code will be applicable in this case?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

  1. The appellant contended that the Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1981 was interpreted improperly by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The section states that the offence must be committed on the ground that he was a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe which was opposed by the appellant.
  2. Thus, the applicability of Section 376 of Indian Penal Code imposing life imprisonment was impermissible as contended by the appellant. 

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

  1. The contentions of the respondent were that the accused-appellant should get punished under the applicable relevant regulations and sections for the crime committed by the accused-appellant.
  2. All the evidences and witnesses pointed out the actions of accused-appellant as a result of which it is to be considered as conclusive in nature. 

JUDGEMENT

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1981 and Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, a life sentence and a fine of Rs. 1000 for each offence in default of which the appellant will have to undergo imprisonment of six months. The same was upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh when appealed.

The Supreme Court held that the application of Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1981 was inappropriate and hence set aside. This provision is applied to a specific type of offence under which the crime in this case cannot be covered. Further, the court upheld the conviction of appellant under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code. The decision of the Sessions Court about the life sentence and fine of Rs. 1000 for each offence in default of which will lead the appellant imprisonment of six months was asserted by the Supreme Court.      

ANALYSIS

The case is about a woman recognised as dalit by the court who is visually challenged. The judgement of the court focuses not only on applicability of relevant sections but also on the conviction of appellant. All the evidences and witnesses have been against the appellant. The appellant’s contentions through the appeal that the non-applicability of Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1981 was successful. The Apex Court through applicable relevant sections upheld the conviction and punishment.

CONCLUSION

Some factors like

help in determining the quantum of punishment as held in Ravji vs. State of Rajasthan, State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa, State of Punjab vs. Prem Sagar. This case states the section applicable for victim belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe by the Sessions Court, but the Supreme Court clarifies the non-applicability of the same. This didn’t spare the accused-appellant, he was made liable under relevant section of IPC for the crime committed by him. Thus, the Sessions Court rightly held the conviction of the accused though not under relevant sections.  

REFERENCES

The Amikus Qriae https://theamikusqriae.com/patan-jamal-vali-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-2021-jc-sc2856/

Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138189653/

This Article is written by Kavita Rajendra Amin, student of DES’s Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune; intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version