Context: The Supreme Court convicted the accused of rape under Section 376 of IPC (Indian Penal Code) in the recent Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh case. However, the conviction under the Prevention of Atrocities Act (PoA) was set aside. It shows insensitivity towards the recognition of caste-based violence against women in India.
Background

• In Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh case, the trial court and the High Court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. He was found guilty of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the PoA Act.
• Both of them viewed a connection between the caste, gender, and disability of the woman as she was a 22-year-old blind Dalit woman.
• However, the Supreme Court diverted from this view. It found the accused guilty of rape under section 376 but not under Section 3(2)(v) of the PoA Act.

Analyzing the judgment
Positive Aspect

• It recognised the intersectional discrimination faced by women on the grounds of sex, caste, and disability. This recognition would help the judges to take into account the multiple marginalities that the victim faced. 
• Intersectional discrimination arises when the identity of a woman intersects with her caste, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Due to this, she may face violence and discrimination on two or more grounds.
• The court also laid down directions to train judges, the police, and prosecutors to be sensitized in such cases.

Negative Aspect

• It set aside the conviction under the PoA Act like many other previous judgments of the Supreme Court.
• In Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017), the court held that the evidence and materials on record did not show that the appellant had committed rape on the ground that the victim was a member of an SC community.
• In Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019), the court affirmed the fact that the victim was a member of an SC community. However, there was no evidence to show that the offense was committed only on that ground and hence the conviction was set aside.
• The court in the current case stated that there was no evidence to establish whether it was caste, gender, or disability that led to the commission of the offence. Hence, it acquitted the accused under the PoA Act.

Why was Conviction under the PoA Act desired?

• First, the repeated setting aside of convictions under the PoA Act strengthens the allegations that the law is misused by marginalised sections.
• Second, the high acquittal rate motivates the dominant communities for continuing atrocities on the SC/ST community. As seen in the recent Hathras rape case, 2020.
• Concludingly, we can say that the judgment was a missed opportunity for the court to use intersectionality to uphold the conviction under the PoA Act. Further, it should have at least referred the matter to a larger bench in order to attain clarity over the critical elements that determine conviction under PoA Act.

About SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 or PoA Act

• It was enacted to protect the marginalized communities against discrimination and atrocities.
• It was amended in 2015 to specifically recognise more atrocities against Dalit and Adivasi women including sexual assault, Devadasi dedication, etc.

Section 3(2)(v) imposes a punishment of life imprisonment on a non-SC/ST person who has committed an offense under IPC on SC/ST person. However,

• The offense should have a minimum punishment of 10 years and 
• It should be committed against the victim on the ground that such a person is from an SC/ST community.

The section was amended in 2015, to change the phrase “on the ground that such a person is a member of SC/ST” to “knowing that such person is a member of SC/ST”.