SC Acquits Accused in SC & ST Act Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Public View

This appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Jharkhand, which had convicted the appellants under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act), where the case stemmed from a land dispute that was resolved in favor of the complainant's family prior to the alleged incident. The prosecution's case was that the appellants trespassed onto the complainant's property and used derogatory caste slurs.

In hearing the appeal the Supreme Court examined whether the convictions under the SC & ST Act could be sustained given significant inconsistencies between the initial complaint and the oral evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly concerning the place of occurrence and the presence of public witnesses, and the Apex Court observed a stark contradiction with the complaint and witness testimonies. The complaint alleged it was a house trespass, while the prosecution witnesses testified that the incident occurred in a field. Crucially, PW-1, the complainant's husband, explicitly stated in cross-examination that no members of the public were present at the scene, apart from immediate family members.

The Apex Court highlighted that offences under clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act require the alleged abuse or insult to occur in a place within public view. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any allegation or evidence supporting forceful eviction under clause (f) of Section 3(1), and the oral evidence did not corroborate the claim of house trespass.

Thus, Supreme Court found gross inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly the discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence and the categorical statement by PW-1 negating the presence of any public witness. The essential ingredients for offences under clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act were not met. The Court also found no basis for the conviction under clause (f) of Section 3(1) or for house trespass.

Consequently, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and sets aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellants.

CORAM: JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA & JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
BETWEEN: HUTU ANSARI @ FUTU ANSAR & ORS VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. 2025 INSC 459 (Non Reportable)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07-04-2025