Introduction:

In a landmark judgment addressing caste violence, mob brutality, and the protection of vulnerable tribal communities, the Kerala High Court on May 25 imposed life imprisonment on twelve persons convicted in the infamous lynching of Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth who was brutally assaulted and humiliated in Attappady, Palakkad, in February 2018 after being accused of stealing rice from a grocery shop. The judgment marks one of the most significant judicial responses to mob violence against members of Scheduled Tribes in recent years and reinforces the role of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in addressing crimes rooted in social discrimination and collective violence.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar delivered the sentencing order in Marakkar v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases, Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2023 and connected matters, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 286. The Bench upheld the conviction of twelve accused persons while modifying certain portions of the trial court judgment relating to sentencing and applicability of provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The incident involving Madhu had shocked the conscience of the nation when images and videos emerged showing the frail tribal youth tied up, assaulted, mocked, and paraded publicly before he eventually succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him. Madhu belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community residing in the forest areas of Attappady and was reportedly suffering from mental health challenges. According to the prosecution, he had allegedly taken food items, including rice, from a local grocery shop due to hunger. Instead of being handed over peacefully to authorities, he was violently attacked by a mob that subjected him to severe physical assault and humiliation.

The brutality of the incident triggered widespread public outrage and renewed national attention toward violence against tribal communities, social marginalisation, and the growing menace of mob lynching. The case also became symbolic of the continuing vulnerabilities faced by members of Scheduled Tribes despite constitutional guarantees and protective legislation.

Following investigation, several accused persons were charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code, including culpable homicide, grievous hurt, kidnapping, unlawful assembly, wrongful confinement, and rioting, along with offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Sessions Court had earlier convicted multiple accused and imposed varying sentences. Appeals against conviction and sentence were subsequently filed before the Kerala High Court.

On the day of sentencing, the High Court heard the convicts individually regarding the quantum of punishment. Several of them sought leniency, citing family responsibilities, dependent children, aged parents, wives, and other humanitarian considerations. Some convicts also informed the Court that they were presently out on parole.

Despite these pleas, the High Court concluded that the gravity of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the mandatory requirements under the SC/ST Act warranted stringent punishment. The Bench imposed life imprisonment upon the principal convicts and directed payment of substantial compensation to Madhu’s mother and legal heirs.

The judgment is significant not only because of the punishment imposed but also because it reaffirms the constitutional commitment to dignity, equality, and protection of historically marginalised communities against caste-based violence and mob vigilantism.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appeals before the Kerala High Court arose from the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting several accused persons for offences arising out of the lynching of Madhu, a tribal youth from Attappady. During the appellate proceedings, the accused persons challenged both their conviction and the severity of the punishment imposed by the trial court.

Counsel appearing for the convicts argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had wrongly invoked the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against certain accused persons. It was contended that the prosecution had exaggerated the role attributed to the accused and that the evidence on record did not justify the harsh conclusions drawn by the Sessions Court.

Some accused argued that they were not active participants in the assault and that their mere presence at the scene could not automatically attract liability for the entire incident. The defence also questioned whether the essential ingredients required for invoking provisions of the SC/ST Act had been satisfactorily established by the prosecution.

During the sentencing phase, counsel appearing for the convicts sought maximum leniency from the Court. The accused persons personally addressed the Bench regarding their social and family circumstances. Several convicts submitted that they had aged parents dependent upon them, minor children requiring financial support, and spouses who would suffer severe hardship in the event of prolonged incarceration.

Some of the convicts informed the Court that they had already spent considerable periods in custody and were presently released on parole. They pleaded that the Court adopt a reformative rather than purely punitive approach while determining the appropriate sentence.

The defence further sought to distinguish the offence from cases involving intentional murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. It was argued that the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC itself reflected absence of intention to cause death and therefore the Court should impose a lesser sentence consistent with the mental element attributed to the offence.

With regard to accused number 16, Muneer, the defence argued that his role was comparatively limited and that the trial court had originally convicted him only under Section 352 IPC. Therefore, according to the defence, he should not be treated on the same footing as the principal accused allegedly involved in the assault.

On the other hand, the State strongly defended the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court and urged the High Court to maintain strict punishment in light of the shocking brutality of the incident. The prosecution argued that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Madhu had been subjected to severe physical violence and humiliation by an unlawful assembly acting collectively against a vulnerable tribal youth.

The State contended that the victim’s tribal identity and vulnerable social position were central to the incident and that the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were rightly invoked. According to the prosecution, the assault was not merely an isolated criminal act but reflected broader patterns of discrimination, dehumanisation, and violence faced by marginalised communities.

The prosecution further argued that the victim had been publicly humiliated, tied up, assaulted, and photographed while in distress, demonstrating complete disregard for his dignity and humanity. The State emphasised that the collective nature of the violence, combined with the victim’s vulnerability and the social impact of the incident, warranted stern punishment.

The prosecution also opposed the pleas for leniency advanced by the accused persons. It argued that personal family circumstances cannot outweigh the gravity of a crime involving mob violence resulting in the death of a mentally challenged tribal youth. The State maintained that imposing severe punishment was necessary both to ensure justice for the victim and to send a strong deterrent message against mob lynching and caste-based atrocities.

In relation to compensation, the prosecution supported the grant of substantial financial compensation to the victim’s mother and legal heirs in recognition of the irreversible loss suffered by the family.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the parties and considering the evidence and sentencing submissions, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of twelve accused persons and imposed life imprisonment upon them under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code read with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar held that the offences committed against Madhu were grave in nature and attracted the mandatory sentencing provisions contained in the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community and had been subjected to brutal violence by a group of persons acting collectively.

The Bench sentenced accused numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each for offences punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 149 IPC.

Additionally, the Court imposed life imprisonment along with fines upon the accused for offences punishable under Section 326 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 367 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that all sentences would run concurrently.

The High Court also maintained the conviction and punishment awarded by the Sessions Court under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, and 342 IPC but modified the convictions to include Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 149 IPC.

In relation to accused number 16, Muneer, the High Court modified the findings of the trial court and held him guilty under Section 323 IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year along with payment of fine.

At the same time, the Court acquitted accused number 1, Hussain, thereby granting him the benefit of doubt. The Bench also upheld the acquittal of accused numbers 4 and 11.

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment concerns the Court’s application of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Bench recognised that crimes committed against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes often carry deeper social implications beyond ordinary criminal conduct. The provisions of the SC/ST Act were therefore applied not merely as technical additions to IPC offences but as recognition of the structural vulnerability and social discrimination experienced by tribal communities.

The Court’s sentencing approach reflects an understanding that mob violence directed against vulnerable individuals undermines constitutional values of dignity, equality, and fraternity. The lynching of Madhu was not treated as an ordinary assault but as a deeply disturbing manifestation of collective violence against a marginalised tribal youth unable to defend himself.

The Bench also took note of the humanitarian pleas advanced by the convicts regarding dependent family members and personal hardships. However, the Court ultimately concluded that such considerations could not outweigh the seriousness of the crime and the irreversible loss caused to the victim and his family.

Importantly, the Court directed that if the fine amounts imposed upon the accused are realised, a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs should be paid to the mother of the deceased and the remaining amount, if any, to Madhu’s legal heirs. In the absence of legal heirs, the entire amount would go to the mother. This direction reflects the Court’s attempt to incorporate victim compensation principles within the sentencing process.

The Court also directed all accused persons presently released on parole to surrender and return to prison for serving the remainder of their sentences. Accused number 16 was also directed to surrender and undergo the modified sentence imposed by the High Court.

The judgment carries profound constitutional and social significance. First, it reinforces judicial intolerance toward mob lynching and vigilante violence, particularly where victims belong to socially and economically marginalised communities.

Second, the decision demonstrates the continuing relevance of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as a legal mechanism for addressing caste-based and community-targeted violence. By invoking the enhanced penal provisions of the Act, the Court acknowledged that crimes against Scheduled Tribes cannot always be viewed in isolation from the broader social realities of discrimination and exclusion.

Third, the ruling reflects the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the dignity of vulnerable persons. Madhu was not only a tribal youth but also mentally challenged and reportedly driven by hunger. The violence inflicted upon him therefore represented an extreme violation of human dignity.

Finally, the judgment contributes to the evolving judicial response to mob lynching in India. Over recent years, courts have increasingly recognised that mob violence threatens not only individual lives but also the rule of law itself. Collective acts of violence driven by prejudice, suspicion, or vigilantism strike at the very foundations of constitutional governance.

The Kerala High Court’s ruling therefore stands as a powerful judicial affirmation that violence against the vulnerable, particularly when rooted in social prejudice and mob mentality, will attract the sternest legal consequences under Indian law.