The Supreme Court passed an order of acquittal in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after finding no evidence to indicate that there was anybody present in the vicinity of the alleged scene of occurrence other than the complainant’s family members.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by five accused persons against the judgment of conviction passed under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted, “As we noticed, there is nothing to indicate that there was anybody present in the vicinity of the alleged scene of occurrence, other than family members of the complainant. When PW-1 categorically negatived the presence of any other person except himself, his wife, brother and his nephew; at the scene of occurrence, it cannot be said to have occurred in public view; thus, absolving the accused of any offence under clause (r) or (s) of Section 3 of the SC & ST Act.”

AOR Braj Kishore Mishra represented the Appellant while Advocate Vishnu Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case emanated from a land dispute involving the complainant and her family and accused nos. 2, 6 and 9. The accused were forced to deliver the land in question to the complainant and her family pursuant to the dismissal of an appeal filed by the accused before the Court of Deputy Commissioner. The alleged incident occurred in the year 2005 when the appellants, along with the other accused, allegedly trespassed into the house/land of the complainant and used derogatory terms, referring to their caste.

The prosecution was launched by a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The wife of PW-1 alleged that the accused nos. 2 and 9, armed with iron rods along with others, formed an unlawful assembly, broke open the lock of the house of the complainant and committed theft. It was also specifically alleged that the accused persons threatened the complainant and her husband and abused them using their caste name, thus insulting and humiliating them before the villagers. The charges were framed, and the accused persons were convicted.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that there was an allegation of derogatory terms having been used in the presence of villagers in the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate. This brought in clause (s) of Section 3(1) dealing with abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe by caste name in a place within public view and clause (r) relating to intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC & ST in any place within public view.

However, PW-1 categorically denied the presence of any other person except himself, his wife, his brother and his nephew at the scene of occurrence. As it could not be said that the incident occurred in public view, the Bench held that no offence under clause (r) or (s) of Section 3 of the SC & ST Act was made out.

The de-facto complainant, in the FIR, had talked about the house in which she was residing while alleging trespass on the accused persons. However, no such allegation was even spoken of in the oral evidence thereby putting to jeopardy the offence of house trespass too. The oral evidence thus did not support the allegations of house trespass.

As per the Bench, there were gross inconsistencies in the complaint and the oral evidence led by way of deposition before the Court. The place of occurrence was stated to be the house in the complaint, while all the witnesses spoke of the alleged incident having occurred in the field, which was the disputed land. However, there was no scope for finding either clause (r) or (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act since PW-1 had categorically stated that there was no member of the public present at the time the incident occurred. There was also nothing to indicate that the complainant and her family were forcefully evicted from the disputed land or that the accused occupied it illegally after delivery was effected.

Thus, finding no reason to sustain the conviction, the Bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants.

Cause Title: Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 459)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Braj Kishore Mishra

Respondent: Advocate Vishnu Sharma, AOR Madhusmita Bora, Advocates Dipankar Singh, Anupama Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment





Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.