The Kerala High Court recently declined the suspension of sentence for 12 out of the 13 convicts in the tragic case of the brutal lynching of Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth, who was fatally assaulted for allegedly stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady, Kerala, in February 2018.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, dismissed the suspension of sentence for Marakkar (2nd accused) and 11 others. The court deliberated on the nature of the gruesome act, including the public humiliation of the deceased by parading him naked, highlighting the severe impact on social conscience and the societal fabric.
However, the Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to Hussain (1st accused), stating that he was not a part of the group involved in the heinous act of parading and humiliating the deceased. The Court differentiated his involvement, stating that he joined the assailants later and was not part of the assembly that perpetrated the degrading treatment inflicted on Madhu.
The Court’s decision stemmed from a nuanced analysis, acknowledging that while the other convicts were actively engaged in the assembly that inflicted harm, Hussain’s involvement was different in nature, primarily being accused of causing head injuries during a stamping incident, which allegedly led to Madhu’s demise.
Legally, the accused were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Sections including 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 367 (kidnapping), and 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) were invoked against multiple convicts.
However, it’s noteworthy that the first accused was not found guilty under the SC/ST Act, setting him apart from the other convicts, hence prompting a distinct evaluation of his involvement in the crime by the Court.
The High Court’s stance In rejecting bail earlier and now denying suspension of sentence for most of the convicts emphasizes the gravity of their actions. This decision accentuates the significance of upholding social harmony and the dignity of individuals, especially marginalized communities, safeguarded by laws against atrocities.
This ruling also signifies the Court’s meticulous examination of individual roles in collective crimes, underscoring the importance of analyzing specific allegations against each accused within a group involved in criminal activities. The Court’s differential treatment towards Hussain reflects the need for a case-specific assessment while considering the culpability of individuals involved in group offenses.
The Court’s stance echoes the critical legal principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and the notion that culpability must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It also reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness and justice while dealing with cases of grave human rights violations.
Moreover, this judgment raises pertinent questions about the treatment of marginalized communities and the necessity for stringent measures to prevent such horrific incidents in the future. It urges a collective introspection on societal norms and the importance of stricter implementation of laws safeguarding the rights of vulnerable sections of society.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s ruling in the Madhulynching case underscores the need for stringent legal scrutiny and nuanced evaluations in cases involving collective crimes. It underscores the importance of a fair and thorough judicial process while addressing heinous crimes that challenge the very fabric of societal morality and conscience.