In Andhra, the story gets no better

Descent and work-based discrimination continues to circumscribe Dalits’ access to and ownership of livelihood resources, occupational mobility and opportunities for socio-economic development, relegating them to among the poorest of the poor across the country. And while Dalits are becoming increasingly aware of and asserting their fundamental rights – to justice, non-discrimination and basic human dignity – a corresponding backlash is taking place in terms of the increasing number of caste-based atrocities perpetrated by the dominant castes.
 

Judgements Pronounced By Six Special Courts In Andhra Pradesh During 2002-02

Source: Study on Special courts in AP (Forthcoming), Sakshi

Most common alleged causes for atrocities:

The emerging trend is that increasingly atrocities against Dalits are related to land, water, wages and other livelihood issues. Most of the atrocities are committed when Dalits attempted to assert their right to,

• Legal remedies
• Access to resources (land, water, livelihood)
• Choice of occupation
• Participation in the cultural life of the community
• Vote
• Self-dignity
• Protest against victimisation of Dalits to satisfy superstitions beliefs of dominant castes (witchcraft, human sacrifice).

A detailed study undertaken by SAKSHI, Andhra Pradesh, reveals several grave issues related to the manner in which the judiciary itself looks at the whole issue of caste crimes and finally pronounces judgements under the Act.

If a Dalit victim is lucky enough to escape or overcome these hurdles, to be one of the few cases that make it to the courts —

 Offence-wise Judgements of High Courts on SC/ST (POA) Act 

i. Cases pending in lower courts

• Andhra Pradesh boasts of sessions courts in all districts entrusted with the speedy trial of atrocity cases falling under the SC/ST (POA) Act. And yet, the volume of atrocity cases does not match the judgement outcomes flowing from these courts of justice.
• By 2003 there were 365 cases pending before special courts of four AP districts. Given the increasing trend in the violations one can imagine the volume of cases pending before lower courts.

ii. Convictions in lower courts

• As per the study of Sakshi 287 cases were acquitted out of 297 cases in which judgements were pronounced in lower courts during 2002-04. There were convictions in only 4.7 per cent of the cases.
• The conviction rate was relatively much higher in the cases in which the trial was completed and judgement was pronounced in less than a year (8.7 %) and it declined with increases in the duration of the trial.

The reasons for acquittals are follows:

• Not abused by caste name at the time of offence
• Evidence not corroborated
• Victim did not identify the accused
• Offences committed not on the ground of SC/ST
• Investigation not done by competent authority
• Report not given by the victim
• Caste was not mentioned complaint
• Medical evidence not produced
• Victim died during the trial
• Victim did not belong to SC/ST.

iii. Convictions in high courts

The same trend appears across the country when viewing high court judgements on the SC/ST (POA) Act across the country:

• Of the 78 high court judgements Sakshi analysed, the major offences being that of rape, attack or caste abuse, 65.4 percent of cases saw judgements that went against Dalits. Particularly where the prescribed maximum punishment was for serious offences incurring over 10 years imprisonment, 75 percent of the cases were decided against Dalits.
• It is when one analyses the grounds for the judgements that judicial misinterpretation of the spirit of the SC/ST (POA) Act emerges. While no court has as yet upheld the fallacious argument that the Act is ultra vires or contravenes fundamental rights under the Constitution, five major grounds are utilised to justify judgements against Dalits :
• Not granting bail violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Judicial opinion as to the validity of sec. 18 SC/ST (POA) Act seems to be split, with seven cases in favour and nine against granting of bail. What is the key here is the legislative purpose for inclusion of such a provision, in recognition of the nature of caste-based atrocities which will often provoke retribution against Dalits where atrocity cases are filed. Hence, in no circumstances where a prima facie case exists should a person charged with offences under the Act be allowed out on bail. By ignoring this factor and granting bail in favour of the dominant caste accused, the courts are wittingly or unwittingly exposing Dalit victims to further threats, harassment or violence.
• Investigation not done by competent authority: Nine out of the 11 cases where appeals were filed citing technical fault in that the investigation of atrocities cases were not done by competent authorities, namely the DSP or higher ranking officer as per Rule 7 SC/ST (POA) Rules, ended in favour of the dominant caste accused being acquitted of the charges. Hence, prima facie cases of atrocities are being dismissed unpunished on the grounds of mere technicalities, which defeat the very purpose of the Act. While the prescription of DSP or higher ranking officer was stipulated to ensure proper and supposedly more fair investigation of atrocity cases, where by mistake or design a lower ranking officer investigates an atrocity case, it defeats the purpose of such protective legislation to allow the accused to escape punishment on a mere technicality. Moreover, it amounts to punishing the Dalit victim for a procedural error which is in fact the error of the government machinery.
• Special court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of SC/ST cases: Again, it defeats the very purpose of the Act to grant the Special Courts no powers to directly take cognisance of SC/ST cases. The whole purpose of this provision is to provide for speedy trials of atrocity cases to bring justice to Dalit and Adivasi victims. However, by stating that all cases have to go through a committal process from a magistrate to the special courts, not only is the overburdened regular court system being stretched with this unnecessary responsibility, but the efficacy and pace of special courts in disposing of atrocity cases is slowed down. The fact that 12 out of 17 cases where this point was mooted resulted in the cases being referred to the magistrates for committal is evidence enough of unnecessary delays being imposed in the trial of atrocity cases.
• Crime not committed on the ground of being SC/ST: One of the greatest fallacies in interpreting the SC/ST (POA) Act lies in the over-emphasis on establishing that the atrocity took place on the ground that the victim was a SC/ST. What judges overlook in this process is that the legislature has already clarified that the term "atrocity" denotes an offence under the Indian Penal Code committed against SCs and STs by persons belonging to communities other than SCs or STs. The necessary mens rea is therefore established with the offence itself and the communities to which both victim and perpetrator respectively belong. It is not for the the court attempting to delve into the very mind of the accused and discern to what extent the atrocity was committed solely because the victim was a SC/ST.
• Appreciation of the SC/ST (POA) Act by lower courts: The most common ground for high court judgements was regarding appreciation of the Act by lower courts, with 27 cases decided on this ground, 20 or 74.1 percent of which resulted in judgements in favour of the dominant caste accused.

 Analysis of Grounds for High Court Judgements on SC/ST (POA) Act

Modification of Judgement means either an order for reinvestigation, a compromise or a reduction of sentence.
Source: Dalit Human Right Monitor 2000-03, Sakshi

Archived from Communalism Combat, March  2005 Year 11  No.106, Cover Story 3