Lynching Case Convicts Get Less Sentence Because They Offered Victim Juice

A small act of compassion by the otherwise aggressive groups of assailants that lynched a tribal man, Madhu, for allegedly stealing food items in 2018, prompted the court here on Wednesday to give a lesser sentence to the convicts. Two of them had offered Madhu a banana and a cup of juice, and this was seen by the Kerala court as "remnants of humanity" and a chance for the convicts' reformation.

While sentencing the convicts, the special court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had dubbed their actions a case of "moral policing" which "can never be encouraged in a civilised society", and that such incidents should be deprecated by imposing adequate punishment and that a "flea bite" sentence could not be given just because the victim was not a big shot.

Yet, the court cited CCTV visuals of one of the accused giving a banana to Madhu and another offering him a cup of juice, saying it believed that some "remnants of humanitarian consideration" existed in the minds of his assailants and that there could be chances of reformation.

"The CCTV footage made available before the court reveals that accused no 3 has given a plantain to Madhu and accused no 14 offered a cup of juice to Madhu when Madhu was brought to Mukkali.

"These acts of A3 and A14 reveal that even now there exists remnants of humanitarian consideration in the mind of the accused and hence, the court finds that chances of reforming the accused into socially committed citizens cannot be ruled out," the judge said.

"It is to be borne in mind that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future," he went on to say. "For that reason and taking into account the grounds stated by the accused and their counsel, I am not inclined to award the maximum punishment provided in the law for the commission of offence." The first accused was convicted and sentenced for offences under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) part II, section 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC.

Of the above offences, section 304 part II of IPC carries a maximum punishment of 10 years jail term, while the others carry sentences ranging from six months to two years.

The first accused was sentenced to seven years under section 304 part II of IPC.

Of the remaining accused, 12 were convicted and sentenced for all the same offences as the first accused and, in addition, for crimes under section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and 367 (kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to griev­ous hurt, slavery, etc) of the IPC.

Of these, section 326 provides for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or jail term up to 10 years, section 324 carries a maximum sentence of three years in jail and section 367 jail term of up to 10 years. Besides, the 12 were also convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which provides for a jail term of up to 5 years. Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act deals with the parading of a member of the SC/ST community in a naked or half naked manner by a person who does not belong to the SC/ST community.

However, the court sentenced the 12 convicts for seven years under section 326 and 304 part II and five years under 367 of the IPC.

Of the total 16 accused, two were acquitted and one was found guilty only of the offence under section 352 (assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation) of IPC for which he was sentenced to three months in prison and a fine of Rs 500.

After the sentencing, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rajesh M Menon said that while he was happy with the conviction, the sentences imposed were "not sufficient".

"They deserved to get life imprisonment," he said and added that he strongly believed the state would appeal for enhancement of punishment.

The SPP said that not sentencing the convicts to life term was an "anomaly" in the court's decision.

Madhu's family too expressed dissatisfaction with the punishment given by the court.

"The sentence is not enough," his mother told reporters outside the court.

His sister agreed, and alleged that it was a failure on the part of the court that it did not impose a more severe punishment.

"We are not satisfied with the punishment given. There has been a failure on the part of the court. The court probably did not understand what actually happened, how he was beaten and brought out from the forest. This court was meant to protect our interests.

"If we do not get justice here, where will we have to go for that? The only option we have is to move the higher courts. We will get justice for Madhu, even if we have to go to the Supreme Court for it," she said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)