The Supreme Court of India has acquitted five appellants previously convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence to establish key elements of the offences.
The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran in Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, overturned the conviction and sentences imposed by both the Trial Court and the High Court of Jharkhand.
Background
The case originated from a land dispute over 28 decimals in Khata No. 116, Plot No. 698, in Lohardaga, Jharkhand. On April 25, 2005, the disputed land was delivered to the complainant’s family following the dismissal of an appeal by the accused before the Deputy Commissioner.
According to the complaint filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, the incident occurred on May 22, 2005, when the accused allegedly broke into the complainant’s house, committed theft, and used caste-based slurs.
Prosecution’s Case
The complaint, lodged by PW-3 (wife of PW-1), alleged that accused nos. 2 and 9, armed with iron rods, broke the lock of the house and stole items worth ₹3,000. The complaint further claimed that the accused threatened the family and used casteist abuse in the presence of villagers.
The prosecution presented witnesses, all family members: PW-1 and PW-3 (husband and wife), PW-4 (their son), PW-6 (brother of PW-1), and PW-2 (son of PW-6). PW-8 initiated the investigation, while PW-5 filed the chargesheet. PW-7, however, had no knowledge of the incident.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that all prosecution witnesses were related and emphasized inconsistencies between the written complaint and oral depositions.
The Court observed:
“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.”
The Court concluded that essential elements of offences under Section 3(1)(r), (s), and (f) of the SC/ST Act were not met. Specifically:
- There was no evidence that the abuse occurred “within public view,” as required under clauses (r) and (s).
- There was no proof of “wrongful occupation” or “forcible eviction” from the land under clause (f).
- The oral evidence did not support the charge of house trespass under Section 447 IPC, as no witness testified to the lock being broken or entry into the house.
PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that only his wife, brother, and nephew were present during the incident, undermining the claim of public view.
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and allowed the appeal:
“On the above reasoning we find absolutely no reason to sustain the conviction as entered into by the Magistrate’s Court confirmed by the High Court. We set aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court and acquit the appellants herein.”
The Court also ordered the cancellation of bail bonds, if any, and disposed of all pending applications.
