Supreme Court acquits accused in SC & ST Act case due to inconsistencies in evidence: Hutu Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand (07 April 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 07 April 2025

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Can inconsistencies between a formal complaint and oral testimony lead to the acquittal of the accused, especially in cases involving allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand. The core issue revolved around discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution, specifically concerning the place of occurrence and the presence of witnesses, leading the Court to overturn the conviction.

In a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Jharkhand. The Court found significant inconsistencies between the initial complaint and the oral evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Case Background

The case originates from a land dispute between the complainant’s family and accused nos. 2, 6, and 9, concerning a 28-decimal plot of land in khata no. 116, plot no. 698. On 25.04.2005, the accused were compelled to relinquish the land to the complainant’s family following the dismissal of their appeal before the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga (Ext.-5).

The alleged incident occurred on 22.05.2005, around 7 a.m. The complainant alleged that the appellants, along with other accused, trespassed onto their property and used derogatory language referencing their caste.

Based on this, a complaint was filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, registered as Complaint Case No. 58 of 2005. The complaint, lodged by PW-3 (wife of PW-1), specifically accused accused nos. 2 and 9, armed with iron rods, of forming an unlawful assembly and breaking into the complainant’s house. They were accused of stealing kitchen utensils, rice, pulse, and bedding, totaling Rs. 3,000 in value. Furthermore, the accused allegedly threatened and abused the complainant and her husband, using casteist slurs in the presence of villagers. The chargesheet was filed under Section 447 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

• Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of criminal trespass. It states:
  “Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”
• Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section lists various offenses considered atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The specific clauses relevant to this case are:
  • Section 3(1)(f): Deals with wrongful occupation or cultivation of land owned by, or in the possession of, or allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
  • Section 3(1)(r): Relates to intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC & ST in any place within public view.
  • Section 3(1)(s): Deals with abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in a place within public view.
• Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation into a cognizable offense.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The prosecution witnesses are all related, indicating a potential bias due to existing enmity stemming from the land dispute.
• The allegations of using derogatory terms against the complainants, even if true, did not occur in a public place or in the presence of any member of the public, thus not attracting Section 3 of the SC & ST Act.
• There are significant inconsistencies between the complaint and the oral evidence. The complaint mentioned house trespass, while the witnesses claimed the incident occurred in a field.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The accused trespassed into the house/land of the complainant and used derogatory terms, referring to their caste, thereby violating Section 3 of the SC & ST Act.
• The prosecution was launched based on a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, alleging house trespass and caste-based abuse.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the inconsistencies between the complaint and the oral evidence affect the conviction under Section 447 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act?
2. Whether the alleged incident occurred in a public place, as required under clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3 of the SC & ST Act?
3. Whether the complainant and her family were forcefully evicted from the disputed land, attracting clause (f) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

• Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: The court considered the clauses related to atrocities, public view, and forceful eviction to determine if the act applied to the facts of the case.
• Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court assessed whether the elements of criminal trespass were met, considering the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hutu Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the lack of evidence supporting key elements of the alleged offenses. The Court emphasized the discrepancies between the initial complaint and the oral testimony, particularly regarding the place of occurrence and the presence of public witnesses. Additionally, the absence of evidence indicating forceful eviction or illegal occupation played a significant role in the Court’s decision to acquit the appellants.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by:

• Fact: 60% (consideration of the factual aspects of the case)
• Law: 40% (consideration of legal aspects)

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Evidentiary Consistency: Consistency between the initial complaint and oral evidence is crucial for securing a conviction, especially in cases involving serious allegations under the SC & ST Act.
• Public View Requirement: For offenses under clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3 of the SC & ST Act, the presence of public witnesses is essential to establish that the incident occurred in public view.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to prove all elements of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case emphasizes the importance of evidentiary consistency and the public view requirement in cases under the SC & ST Act. The judgment reinforces the principle that discrepancies between the initial complaint and oral evidence can undermine the prosecution’s case, leading to acquittal. It also clarifies that for certain offenses under the SC & ST Act, the presence of public witnesses is necessary to establish that the incident occurred in a public place.

Conclusion

In Hutu Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Jharkhand. The Court based its decision on significant inconsistencies between the initial complaint and the oral evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses. This judgment underscores the importance of evidentiary consistency and the need to establish that alleged offenses occurred in a public place to secure convictions under the SC & ST Act.