Allahabad High Court Upholds Attempt-to-Murder Conviction, Sets Aside SC/ST Act Charge in Bulandshahr Firing Case, Mere proof that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste and accused committed offence under IPC is not enough. Court says injured witness’s testimony and medical evidence proved gunshot attack and house trespass, but prosecution failed to establish caste-based motive required for conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act; life sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced to time already undergone.
The Allahabad High Court has partly allowed the appeal of Sunil alias Punjabi, upholding his conviction for attempt to murder and house trespass, but setting aside his conviction under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A division bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj and Justice Harvir Singh delivered the judgment in an appeal arising out of a 2017 conviction by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr. The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, along with five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC.
The case stemmed from a March 5, 2015 incident in which the complainant alleged that Sunil entered the house of the injured, Sundar Lal, abused him, and fired a gunshot, causing injuries to his hand and chest. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the injured witness, the complainant, an eyewitness, the investigating officer and the doctor who treated the injured.
The High Court found the injured witness’s testimony to be credible and unimpeached despite lengthy cross-examination. It also noted that his version was corroborated by the complainant, an eyewitness, and medical evidence showing firearm injuries. The court rejected the defence argument that non-recovery of the weapon, non-seizure of clothes, and other lapses in investigation were sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that defective investigation by itself cannot result in acquittal if the prosecution evidence is otherwise trustworthy.
However, the court held that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act could not stand. It observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, or that the accused knew the victim’s caste. The alleged abuse was also not shown to be caste-related. The bench further noted that the IPC offences in question did not carry the minimum punishment of ten years required for application of Section 3(2)(v).
On sentencing, the court found the life sentence under Section 307 IPC to be disproportionate in the facts of the case. Taking note that the appellant had already spent more than 11 years in custody, the bench reduced the sentence under Section 307 IPC to the period already undergone. The conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC were left intact.
The court therefore partly allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of the SC/ST Act charge,
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, requires proof that the offence was committed on the ground of the victim's caste.
Mere proof that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste and accused committed offence under IPC is not enough
Sunil @ Panjabi v. State of U.P., (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2985883
