Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 08-12-2017 in case of petitioner name Asharfi vs State of Uttar Pradesh
| |

SC/ST Act and Rape Conviction: Analysis of Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Judgment

The case of Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450, 376(2)(g), 323 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was justified given the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable, as there was no evidence to show that the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. However, the conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC was upheld.

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that on the night of 8/9.12.1995, the appellant, Asharfi, along with another accused, Udai Bhan, forcibly entered the house of PW-3 Phoola Devi and committed rape on her. PW-4 Brij Lal was allegedly restrained by the accused at gunpoint. Upon hearing the victim’s cries, neighbors PW-1 Rassu and PW-2 Baghraj came to the scene, prompting the accused to flee.

Based on Brij Lal’s complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 376, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of the SC/ST Act. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in the conviction of the appellant and Udai Bhan.

Legal Issues

The primary legal questions before the Supreme Court were:

  • Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(g) IPC was justified based on the evidence.
  • Whether the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was legally sustainable.
  • Whether the sentencing imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court was appropriate.

Arguments by the Appellant (Asharfi)

The appellant’s counsel contended that:

  • There was insufficient evidence to prove the charge of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.
  • The prosecution had failed to establish that the offense was committed specifically because the victim was a Scheduled Caste member.
  • The application of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was incorrect, as the necessary intent to target the victim due to her caste status was not proven.
  • The trial court and High Court had misinterpreted the law regarding the application of the SC/ST Act.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The prosecution argued that:

  • The testimonies of the victim and eyewitnesses clearly established the occurrence of rape.
  • The presence of the accused in the victim’s house and their actions demonstrated criminal intent.
  • The trial court and High Court correctly applied Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, given the victim’s caste status.
  • The conviction and sentencing should be upheld in the interest of justice.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which, before its amendment in 2016, required that the offense be committed “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” The Court observed:

“The evidence and materials on record do not show that the appellant had committed rape on the victim on the ground that she belonged to Scheduled Caste.”

The Court further held:

“Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act can be pressed into service only if it is proved that the rape has been committed on the ground that the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste community.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

  • The conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not legally sustainable and was set aside.
  • The conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and other IPC sections was upheld.
  • Since the appellant had already served more than ten years in prison, he was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal jurisprudence in India:

  • Clarifies that the SC/ST Act provisions require specific intent to target victims based on caste.
  • Ensures that criminal law is applied fairly without overextension of special legal provisions.
  • Reinforces the principle that all elements of an offense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Sets a precedent for future cases involving the interpretation of the SC/ST Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case upholds the integrity of legal interpretation by ensuring that caste-based legal protections are not applied indiscriminately. By distinguishing between crimes committed against members of Scheduled Castes and crimes committed because of caste identity, the ruling provides clarity on the proper application of the SC/ST Act.

Judgment delivered by: Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Asharfi vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Rape Cases
See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts