“Their Act Left A Blot On Social Conscience”: Kerala HC Denies Bail To Men Accused Of Beating Tribal Person To Death For Stealing Food
The Kerala High Court has denied bail to men who were accused of beating a tribal person to death for stealing food saying that the case is exceptional.
The accused persons had filed petitions under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking suspension of their sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, “… the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act for the reason of parading the deceased naked with his hands tied from behind along the public road for a considerable span of time certainly makes the case exceptional. The nature of such an act left a blot on the social conscience and the cultural fabric of the society, which is considered to be a civilized one. The petitioners procured custody of the deceased from the forest and in unison paraded him publicly and together they incessantly attacked him. That resulted in his death.”
In this case, there were sixteen accused persons and common charge was framed against them. The offenses charged were under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 342, 352, 364, 367, 368, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). After trial, accused Nos. 4 and 11 were acquitted. Accused No.1 was convicted for a set of offences. Accused No.2, 3, 5 to 10 and 12 to 15 were convicted for another set of offences. Accused No.16 was convicted for offence under Section 352 of the IPC alone.
It was a case where a hapless Scheduled Tribe member, who was leading a lonely savage life in the forest was apprehended and paraded to the town naked, with his hands tied behind and a sack on his shoulders. The provocation was petty theft he said to have committed by ‘stealing’ food and other articles from the shops of some of the accused persons. He was incessantly manhandled causing fatal injuries. He was not in his normal mental stage. Significantly, the court below did not find the 1st accused guilty of the offence under the SC/ST Act. Pointing out those aspects, the counsel urged that the term of the sentence imposed on him being seven years, he was entitled to get the sentence suspended.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “It is seen that during the pendency of the trial of the case the 2nd respondent was allegedly threatened at the instance of some of the petitioners. Considering those facts and circumstances the concern of the 2nd respondent about her safety and security in the event of releasing the petitioners on bail has reason.”
The Court said that when there is no allegation that the first accused was a party to the assembly that perpetrated harassment and ridiculing of the deceased, a different criteria is liable to be taken in his case.
“In the case of the 1st accused, there is a difference. The very allegation against him is that he joined the other assailants after the deceased was already captured him in custody and kept under confinement. Based on a solitary act that he stamped the deceased and as a consequence his head hit against a wall resulting in head injury, and that turned out to be a major cause of the death, he was found guilty”, also said the Court.
The Court, therefore, noted that the first accused is entitled to get an order of suspension of sentence whereas the other petitioners are not.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the appeal for hearing on January 15, 2024.
Cause Title- Sidhique & Ors. v. State of Kerala
