Description
The Kerala court on Tuesday sentenced 14 of the 16 people in the Madhu lynching case. (Representative) A small act of compassion by the aggressive groups that lynched the Madhu tribal man for allegedly stealing groceries in 2018 led the court here on Wednesday to hand down a lesser sentence to the convicts. Madhu had been offered a banana and a cup of juice by two of them, and was deemed by the Kerala court as "remnants of humanity" and an opportunity for convict reform. In sentencing the convicts, the Special Court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act characterized their actions as cases of "moral policing" which "can never be encouraged in a civilized society", and such incidents should be disapproved of by impose a proper sentence and that a "fleabite" sentence could not be imposed simply because the victim was not a kingpin.
However, the court cited CCTV footage of one defendant giving Madhu a banana and another offering him a cup of juice, saying it believed there were some "remnants of humanitarian consideration" in the minds of Madhu and his assailants and that it could There are possibilities for reform.
“CCTV footage available in court reveals that defendant #3 gave Madhu a banana and defendant #14 offered Madhu a cup of juice when Madhu was brought to Mukkali.
“These acts of A3 and A14 reveal that there are still traces of humanitarian consideration in the defendant’s mind today and therefore the court finds that the possibilities of transforming the defendant into socially engaged citizens cannot be excluded,” the judge said. . saying.
"You have to keep in mind that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future," he continued. "For this reason and taking into account the reasons presented by the defendants and their lawyers, I am not inclined to impose the maximum penalty provided by law for the commission of a crime." The first defendant was convicted and sentenced for offenses under Section 304 (manslaughter not equal to murder) Part II, Section 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (riot), 323 (intentional damage) and 342 (forced confinement) of the ICC.
Of the above crimes, Section 304 Part II of the ICC carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, while the others carry sentences ranging from six months to two years.
The first defendant was sentenced to seven years under Article 304 Part II of the ICC.
Of the rest of the defendants, 12 were found guilty and sentenced for the same crimes as the first defendant and, in addition, for the crimes referred to in article 324 (intentionally injuring with weapons or dangerous means), 326 (intentionally causing bodily harm by weapons or dangerous means) and 367 (kidnapping or kidnapping with the intent to subject a person to serious bodily harm, enslavement, etc.) of the IPC.
Of these, article 326 carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to 10 years, article 324 carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison, and article 367 with imprisonment of up to 10 years. In addition, the 12 were also found guilty and sentenced for the offense under Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which carries a term of imprisonment for up to '5 o'clock. . Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act deals with the parade of a nude or semi-nude member of the SC/ST community by a person who is not a member of the SC/ST community.
However, the court sentenced the 12 sentenced to seven years under Articles 326 and 304 Part II and five years under Article 367 of the ICC.
Of the total of 16 defendants, two were acquitted and one convicted solely of the crime contemplated in article 352 (criminal assault or violence that is not due to serious provocation) of the ICC, for which he was sentenced to three months in prison and a fine. of 500 rupees. .
After the sentencing, Special Prosecutor (SPP) Rajesh M Menon said that while he was happy with the sentence, the sentences handed down were "not good enough".
“They deserved to be sentenced to life in prison,” he said, adding that he strongly believed the state would appeal to improve the sentence.
The SPP said the failure to sentence those sentenced to life imprisonment was an "anomaly" in the court's decision.
Madhu's family also expressed their dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed by the court.
"The sentence is not enough," his mother told reporters outside the court.
His sister agreed, arguing that it was a failure on the part of the court not to impose a harsher sentence.
"We are not satisfied with the sentence handed down. There was a failure on the part of the court. The court probably did not understand what really happened, how he was beaten and taken out of the forest. This court was supposed to protect our interests." .
"If we don't get justice here, where should we go for this? The only option we have is to move to the higher courts. We will get justice for Madhu, even if we have to go to the Supreme Court for this." she says.
