Decided on– April 27,2021
Appellant- Patan Jaman Vali
Respondent– The state of Andhra Pradesh
Coram– D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah
Facts[1]– The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Court under section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 376 (1) of IPC as well as imposition of rs 1000 fine for each of the sentences along with standard 6 months imprisonment.
Incident- On 31 March 2011, in the village of Gajullapali around 9 am, it was alleged that while victim’s mother was engaged in some domestic work near water tap at about 50 feet distance from the house, appellant came around to ask her whether her sons were available which wasn’t unusual as he worked with victim’s brother and was their friend and used to come around regularly. Victim is a blind girl belonging to a family of Scheduled caste. The victim’s mother heard the sound of victim struggling after half an hour and gathered around the door with her sons and their neighbour and the door was found locked and after that, the appellant is alleged to have tried to escape from the front door but was apprehended by the people. The victim’s mother found her daughter lying naked on the ground with her genitals bleeding. Victim said that appellant came in the house, asking about her brothers who were cutting wood in some distance, and when she told him that, he locked the door and raped her.
After that, victim’s maternal uncle called the sub-inspector of Mahanandi Police Station, and they came and arrested the appellant while victim’s mother filed out the report and it was registered as crime no. 28/2011. Victim was examined by a civil surgeon in the district hospital and the surgeon reported that there was a cut on her face as well as signs of sexual assault with a laceration on her vagina and bleeding.
The sections invoked-
Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act, 1989[2]– which essentially says that if a person not belonging to SC or ST commits a crime against the person or property of a SC/ST, a crime punishable under IPC with imprisonment of 10 years or above, on the ground of that person belonging to those groups, then he/she can be convicted under this section.
Section 376(1) of IPC- it talks about how a man guilty of committing the crime of rape is punishable with minimum sentence of 7 years which can be extended to life imprisonment or term of 10 years along with fine.
Procedural history-
Sessions Court-
This case was first dealt by session judge who found the appellant guilty under both the above-mentioned sections and gave him a life sentence under both the offences along with the fine of 1000 each.
The appellant’s legal counsel had argued that the sec 3(2)(v) cannot be invoked as it was not committed on the ground that victim was of scheduled caste and there is no evidence collaborating to the fact. He went on to state that victim’s identification of the appellant is weak as she doesn’t have the use of her vision and claims to recognise from her voice.
But the judge countered that victim’s mother not informing the police that she belonged to this caste is not fatal to this case as she is an illiterate woman who doesn’t know the procedure of law and also, her caste was mentioned in Ex P-1. The judge further proposed that given the familiarity of the victim and appellant, it was clear that appellant knew of her caste and that knowledge in itself is enough, considering that he wouldn’t have done so, had she belonged to an upper caste, raping her in her own house, few feet away from her family.
And the medical evidence and witnesses statement provided enough proof to convict him under IPC.
High Court of Andhra Pradesh-
The appeal went to the high court who upheld the decision of the life imprisonment by sessions court and claimed that the section 3(2)(v) gets attracted if the person had the knowledge of the victim belonging to that caste and even if not, he was beyond reasonable doubt, guilty of crime of rape under IPC.
Issues raised-
Whether the conviction under section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 would uphold ?
And if not, whether it was justifiable to impose the sentence of life imprisonment under section 376 (1) of IPC in the absence of conviction under SC and ST act,1989 ?
Contention-
The appellant’s legal counsel, Mr Harinder argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict the appellant under section 3(2)(v) because of the way “on the ground of such person who is a member of Scheduled tribe or Scheduled Tribe”[3] has been interpreted in the present court and thus there has been no violation under this act, and it is also unreasonable that a life imprisonment is met out in the absence of above offence.
Analysis-
The coram heavily focused on the concept of intersectionality and how it plays a role in shaping the lived realities of people. Intersectionality is a framework under which people are able to understand how various types of discrimination come together and make a unique and distinct experience for every person. The concept of double discrimination is very impertinent to the true sense of justice as it is not possible to analyse the experiences of a person based on one single identity, by ignoring all the other identities. The term coined by Kimberle Crenshaw has been explained by taking the traffic example. How at an intersection, vehicles are travelling from all the directions and meet at a particular point. Just like that, victim’s identity as a blind woman from scheduled caste painted for her a unique experience for herself, where she is not only under the oppression of upper caste, but also under patriarchy made even more vulnerable due to her disability. But law and courts tend to focus on one singular identity for the ease of purpose as it is easy to pinpoint the reason behind the discrimination or violence as if not for that identity, it wouldn’t have happened. And laws in India haven’t accommodated intersectional interpretation as made obvious by the formal interpretation of article 15 which would be easy to go around as it doesn’t facilitate the prohibition of intersectional discrimination, only one discrimination.
And D Y Chandrachud pointed out that even section 3(2)(v) of 1989 act also doesn’t provide for safeguarding the unique experiences of SC/ST women shaped by other identities such as disability, race, sexual orientation etc, thus emphasizing the need for reform in laws to accommodate the practical experiences.
Further, judges have addressed the problem of the provision “on the ground of that such person being a member of SC/ST group”. The judges have put forward how even the section 3(2)(v) of 1989 act doesn’t accommodate the lived experiences[4] of SC/ST women whose reality is shaped by many more identities such as disability, sex orientation, race etc. It is brought out that how if this incident is analysed from the frame of intersectionality, it would be hard to pinpoint and prove the actual driving force(identity) behind the violence.
Thus, it would be hard to prove whether it was the fact that she was a woman or disabled or from SC/ST that was the ground for the rape.
The court has further jumped into analyse the true interpretation of “on the ground”. A couple of cases has been taken into account to prove how ‘just mere knowledge of the fact that victim belongs to the scheduled caste or tribe’ isn’t enough to invoke the said section, but there is need of steady proof by the prosecutor to show that how being a SC/ST was the reason that they fell into becoming a victim.
It has been criticized how in some cases, the provision was interpreted as ‘on the only ground’. This was making the provision restrictive while it wasn’t meant to be and also factored into erasing the ‘lived experiences of SC/ST where their other identities played a role.
The coram admitted that while it is true that victim’s mother not relaying to the police officer that she was from scheduled caste doesn’t mean that that this provision cannot be invoked, the mere proof of the knowledge possessed by the appellant isn’t enough to invoke this section as no reasonable proof was provided by the prosecution in the trial before Sessions court that appellant committed rape because she was vulnerable due to her status as a member of scheduled caste.
So, it was found out that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that tid-bit of information.
The judges have also addressed the claim of appellant that victim being blind, her claim of recognizing him by his voice is a weak admission[5], while not an issue before them, the court has said that it is imperative that disabled people are not treated as incapable, but rather the courts should work on providing them a different and familiar forum for taking their statements.
Expanding the point, it was said victimhood should not be the motivating factor for judges in such cases which basically means that generalized sympathy shouldn’t be what should be taken into account, but rather their vulnerability. The state of them being susceptible to be easily taken advantage of. How a deaf person might not hear an attacker coming, or a mute person able to relay injustice happened against the victim.
In this case, while examining whether life imprisonment was a just punishment under section 376 of IPC, the court took into account how being blind put her at a certain disadvantage which appellant took the advantage of, knowing that her family was engaged outside in other activities, along with other factors such as the gravity of the crime, the rehabilitation of the victim, the advantage that appellant had on her. They further explained that 7 years is the minimum sentence and can be only lowered in special cases and analysing this case, it is clear that appellant took advantage of the situation, being familiar with the family, the victim being blind and her family not being in vicinity. Thus, it is beyond clear that nature of the crime was serious with evidence such as bleeding compounded by the disability.
Judgement-
Supreme Court held that section 3(2)(v) cannot be upheld considering the lack of proof by prosecutor that appellant raped her because she was a member of scheduled caste and mere knowledge wasn’t enough.
And that life imprisonment under section 376(1) of IPC is justified given the grave nature of the crime, only made more serious by the disability that the victim suffered.
Defects of the law[6], if any- one of the major defects of law accentuated in this case were the words “on the ground of” which laid down burden of proof on the victims who are already marginalized and as demonstrated in this case, creates an unnecessary burden[7] on the them as it is not an easy feat to prove that the reason behind any sort of discrimination was their status as a part of SC/ST group and it is especially restricting in the cases where there is an intersectional discrimination present as it is hard to pinpoint if this particular part of their identity was the cause of the actions taken by culprit. But this problem was solved when in 2016, an amendment was made to the said act and the words ‘on the ground of’ were substituted with ‘knowing that such member is a part of SC or ST groups’ and now this burden of proof from already oppressed people was lifted.
But one thing, that this amendment didn’t resolve was the fact that how the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 flat-out ignores the real experiences of people by not acknowledging that how different oppressed identities of a person can overlap and create a totally distinct experience for him/her. For example, like the victim was a member of Scheduled caste and even made more vulnerable due to her disability of not being able to see and such acts only account for discrimination based on single factor, not considering how different forms of identity can interact with each other like it was done in this case when the court considered that how victim being blind made her even more vulnerable.
And we also saw that Supreme Court addressed the question of how the ability of the victim to recognise the culprit was challenged by the accused in lower court and emphasized that just because they need a different mode to be able to communicate doesn’t mean that they are to not be taken seriously. This shows that there is still need for some reforms in the system to better accommodate the people with disability and the need to take them seriously. This court also gave some guidelines which should be applicated.
Inference- this decision in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh shows the need to adopt intersectional approach while dealing with such sensitive matters and this can be started by accommodating laws such as SC/ST Act to explicitly address the unique experiences and vulnerabilities a person can encounter when faced with being oppressed from various sides. It also shows us that a unique and distinct approach is to be taken in every other case by taking in account the whole circumstances of the incident like in this case, how the court took into account that victim was made even more vulnerable due to no use of her eyesight and that appellant took advantage of this. It is necessary to not only acknowledge the intersectional oppression but also note how it might make a person more vulnerable.
One more thing this case touches upon is how discriminatory intent can be hard to prove in such case under laws like SC/ST and court and legislature needs to keep in mind all the practical hurdles a person already with lack of resources might face and how these provisions can make it even more difficult for him/her to get access to justice and lastly, and more importantly, judges in this case has provided guidelines such as the appointment of special educators and interpreters are appointed to make the process of attaining justice more accommodable to them and introducing courses in LLB to make upcoming lawyers aware of the lack of provisions of intersectionality available in our courts and laws.
So, this case played an important role to bring forth the importance of considering double discrimination and also emphasizing the need for disability- friendly accommodations needed in our system.
-Akshita (Jindal Global Law School)
[1] Patan Jamal Vali vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh (2021). Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/patan-jamal-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ll-2021-sc-231-392524.pdf (17th June,2024)
[2] Columnist, L. (2022) To deny the protection on the premise that the crime was not committed against an SC & St Person solely on the ground of their caste identity is unacceptable: Supreme Court, Casemine.com, https://www.casemine.com. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/columns/to-deny-the-protection-on-the-premise-that-the-crime-was-not-committed-against-an-sc-st-person-solely-on-the-ground-of-their-caste-identity-is-to-deny-how-social-inequalities-function-in-a-cumulative-fashion-sc (17th July, 2024).
[3] LawFoyer (2024) Patan Jamal Vali vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, LawFoyer. Available at: https://lawfoyer.in/patan-jamal-vali-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh/ (17th June, 2024).
[4] Intersectionality matters: The Supreme Court judgment in Patan Jamal Vali v State of Andhra Pradesh (2021) Centre for Law & Policy Research. Available at: https://clpr.org.in/blog/intersectionality-matters-the-supreme-court-judgment-in-patan-jamal-vali-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh/ (17th June, 2024).
[5] Bhardwaj, P. et al. (2021) A blind scheduled caste woman raped! Supreme Court explains intersectional oppression and how it needs to be addressed, SCC Times. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/29/a-blind-scheduled-caste-woman-raped-supreme-court-explains-intersectional-oppression-and-how-it-needs-to-be-addressed/ (17th July, 2024).
[6] Ili Law Review summer issue 2021 388 recognising … Available at: https://ili.ac.in/pdf/17.pdf (17th June, 2024).
[7] Clstnnlu (2021) Case comment: Patan Jamal Vali V. the state of Andhra Pradesh, Constitutional Law Society. Available at: https://clstnnlu.wordpress.com/2021/08/30/case-comment-patan-jamal-vali-v-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh/ (17th June, 2024).