New Delhi, Dec 17 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of an individual under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in a case involving gang rape and murder, asserting that the prosecution did not demonstrate that the crime was committed with awareness of the victim's caste.

A bench comprised of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran noted that simple evidence of the victim being from a Scheduled Caste is not adequate to uphold a conviction under the SC/ST Act.

"Although the prosecution has substantiated the caste of the victim, there is no indication that the accused were aware of her caste status or had any previous acquaintance with her," emphasized the bench led by Justice Amanullah.

The court highlighted that awareness of the victim’s caste is a crucial element of the offenses under the SC/ST Act, stating that the crime in question could not be deemed to have occurred with such knowledge.

"Thus, the offense cannot be classified as one committed with knowledge of the victim's caste status, which is a vital element under the provisions invoked in the SC/ST Act," the ruling clarified.

The Supreme Court also expressed skepticism regarding the reliance of the Telangana High Court on certain circumstances to uphold the conviction under the SC/ST Act. It dismissed the credibility of a confession supposedly made in front of a witness called to the police station, arguing that "no reliance can be placed on such a confession made while in police custody."

The bench further rejected the prosecution's attempt to classify recoveries as admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when the items were purportedly seized from the accused during arrest.

"If the material objects could have been taken from the accused simply by searching them, the effort to categorize it as a recovery under Section 27 cannot be accepted," the Supreme Court stated.

While affirming the convictions for gang rape and murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a thorough chain of circumstantial and forensic evidence, including DNA profiling, the Supreme Court firmly ruled that no offense under the SC/ST Act was substantiated in this case.

Consequently, the conviction under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was annulled.

Regarding the sentencing, the Justice Amanullah-led bench noted that the trial court had initially imposed the death penalty, which was later commuted by the Telangana High Court to life imprisonment with a provision that the appellant would remain incarcerated "until the end of life, without remission."

The apex court considered mitigating factors, including the appellant being approximately 40 years old at the time of the offense, having a family that included his wife, four children, and elderly parents, and being the sole provider.

It also noted that the appellant had no previous criminal history and that there was no evidence suggesting he posed a significant threat to society or was beyond rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court concluded that the matter did not qualify as one of the "rarest of rare" cases justifying the death penalty and mentioned that there was no negative report concerning the appellant's behavior while in custody.

"We are convinced that this case can be adjusted to a life sentence extending to 25 years without remission," the Supreme Court stated, while partially approving the appeal.