VETRIVEL VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE                         

INTRODUCTION

Individuals belonging to lower castes often face systemic discrimination, social exclusion, and, at times, outright harassment from those belonging to higher castes. This discrimination permeates various aspects of life, including education, employment, and social interactions.

This case reflects a broader societal problem where individuals from marginalized castes are vulnerable to mistreatment and humiliation. The victim, in this instance, faced not only physical harm but also verbal abuse that aimed at degrading her based on her caste identity.

This case illustrates the broader societal struggle against caste-based discrimination, showcasing the legal mechanisms in place to address such offenses. The court’s decision to affirm the appellant’s conviction, albeit with a modified sentence, reflects the ongoing efforts to combat caste-based harassment and ensure justice for marginalized communities

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Chinnathambi was the owner of the shop, which he had rented to a couple who started a tailoring business. Here the couple running the tailoring business are the de facto complainant who filed a suit against the appellant.

2. The appellant in this case is a relative Chinnathambi, the shop’s owner. More specifically, the father of the appellant is the brother of Chinnathambi, and the appellant is Mekala’s brother.

3. On August 30, 2014, a disagreement occurred between Mekala (the appellant’s sister) and the complainant’s children, prompting the complainant to question Mekala’s behavior towards their children. In support, the appellant sided with Mekala during the argument. Following the altercation, the appellant, influenced by persistent conflicts, insisted that the complainant vacate the tailoring shop.

4. Upon refusal, the appellant, not belonging to any particular community, resorted to using offensive language and caste-related insults with the intention of publicly humiliating the complainant.

5. It was alleged by the complainant that the appellant caught hold of the de facto complainant and pulled her by holding her hair and also caused injury on the cheeks of the de facto complainant. 

6. The respondent police filed a case against the appellant for the offense under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and Section 323 IPC read with Section 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as amended by the Ordinance in 2014.

7. The Sessions Judge, following the framing of charges and the trial, rendered a verdict that convicted the appellant, imposing a fine of Rs. 1000 and a rigorous imprisonment term of 3 years for the first two offenses. Moreover, a sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 was handed down for the third offense.
8. Even though the Special Court subsequently reduced the substantive sentence to two years, the High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for all three offenses.

ISSUE RAISED

1. The primary issue pertains to the appellant’s conviction under the Atrocities Act and the Penal Code. The appeal is specifically centered on the duration of the sentence to be served by the appellant and the fact that despite the reduction of the substantive sentence to two years by the Special Court, the High Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction for all three offenses.

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT

1. Firstly, they asserted that there is a substantial delay in filing the case, and the prosecution has not adequately explained this delay. This raises concerns about the promptness and diligence of the legal proceedings. The counsel underscores that the date of the alleged incident, mentioned as 30.08.2014 around 4:00 p.m., coincides with the day the investigating officer was supposedly appointed. The counsel argues that such swift appointment is unlikely, casting doubt on the credibility of the investigation.

2. Secondly, the counsel contends that the investigating officer lacked proper authorization, thereby questioning the entire basis of the case. The appellants contended that the court failed to scrutinize vital aspects of the case, particularly concerning the evidence and pertinent legal provisions. The counsel asserts that the court did not properly grasp the presented evidence, claiming that it does not establish the essential elements outlined in section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and section 323 r/w.3(1)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as amended by the Ordinance in 2014. This challenges the legal underpinning for the charges against the appellant, indicating that the offenses described in the cited sections lack corroboration from the evidence provided.

3. Thirdly, they emphasized upon the testimony of P.W.4, identified as an eyewitness. However, the counsel asserts that P.W.4 did not lend support to the prosecution’s case, suggesting an absence of corroborating evidence for the charges. It was contended that the purported incident occurred within the confines of a building, away from public view, that is within 4 walls of the shop rented by the couple for tailoring business. This is presented as a pivotal argument, with the counsel asserting that, in this context, the act would not fall under the purview of the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Ordinance 2014.
4. Lastly, the argument was made that despite the reduction of the substantive sentence to two years by the Special Court, the High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for all three offenses. The submission was that, according to the records, the appellant had already served a sentence of 5 months and 25 days. Therefore, at present, the appellant had completed a sentence exceeding 9 months. Ultimately, it was contended that this case warrants the Court to release the appellant based on the sentence already served.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS

1. The respondent counters the appellant’s assertion that the incident occurred within the confined space of a tailoring shop and was not in a public place. They argue that, given the nature of the tailoring shop as a public venue with people constantly entering and exiting, and with the presence of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 during the incident, the appellant’s claim is not credible.

2. The respondent contends that the appellant’s actions, including uttering the victim’s caste name and assaulting her within the tailoring shop, constitute a public offense under the relevant sections of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended in 2014.

3. The respondent cites the medical evidence introduced in the course of the trial. P.W.8, the doctor who attended to the victim, verified the injuries. The respondent contends that this medical evidence is consistent with the prosecution’s case, strengthening the assertion that the appellant committed the offenses under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and section 323 IPC r/w. section 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Finally, the respondent initiates by underscoring the comprehensive evidence introduced by the prosecution throughout the trial. They point out that a total of 12 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.12) were examined, and 8 documents (Ex.P1 to P8) were submitted to substantiate the case against the appellant. The respondents argued that the appellant physically attacked the victim, made derogatory remarks based on caste, and that several individuals witnessed these actions. 

5. The respondent maintains that this combined testimony, supported by evidence from P.W.9 and P.W.10, conclusively demonstrates that the appellant is guilty of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The council also argued that the High Court has already demonstrated leniency by reducing the substantive sentence to 2 years. Consequently, he urges that no further leniency be extended by this Court.

JUDGEMENT

The court stipulated that offenses under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act carry a minimum sentence of 6 months, extendable up to 5 years, along with a fine. The Special Judge, without providing reasons, imposed a 3-year rigorous imprisonment term. The High Court, in confirming the conviction, also did not explicitly justify the 2-year sentence.

Upon review, it is evident that the complainant did not sustain severe injuries, as affirmed by PW8’s examination.

Considering the appellant’s age, lack of a criminal record, and having served over 9 months, the primary sentence is reduced to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is directed to pay a Rs. 25,000/- fine for the three offenses within six weeks, with non-compliance resulting in a 3-month imprisonment term. The amended judgment grants partial relief, reducing the primary sentence to 1 year, and imposes a fine that, if not paid within six weeks, leads to a 3-month imprisonment term, with the fine remitted to the added respondent.

ANALYSIS 

The appellant initially faced conviction by the Sessions Judge, resulting in fines and a rigorous imprisonment term. Despite a reduction in the sentence by the Special Court, the High Court maintained the conviction for all three offenses. This impacted the appellant’s freedom and legal record. The complainant might find a sense of justice in the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, given the alleged mistreatment and injuries sustained. On the other hand the lack of explicit justification for the sentences raises questions about the transparency and consistency of the legal rationale applied in the case, potentially impacting public perception of the legal system, but the amended judgment may improve public perception of the legal system, suggesting an effort to balance punishment severity with individual circumstances.

CONCLUSION

The final decision by the court shows that they tried to be fair by considering all the details of the case. They reduced the main punishment and added a fine to balance things out, recognizing that the situation was complicated. However, this decision affects the people involved in a big way, like the person accused (appellant), the person who complained, and how the public sees the legal system. The final judgment tries to handle the specific details of this case, but it also highlights the difficulty of applying rules while considering each person’s unique situation. As this case continues, it sparks bigger conversations about how well the legal system works, how fair it is, and how clear and open it is, especially when dealing with serious matters like those covered by the Atrocities Act.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.indianconstitution.in/2022/01/vetrivel-vs-state-represented-by-its.html?m=1#google_vignette
2. https://www.legallore.info/post/vetrivel-vs-state-represented-by-its-deputy-superintendent-of-police
3. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61f248d29fca19327fb9a28a
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122775251/

DECLARATION

This Article is written by Fathima Zohra, student of Kristu Jayanti College of Law, 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.

Admin