New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted five individuals 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. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements and the absence of key legal ingredients necessary to establish the alleged offences.
The case, Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, originated from a land dispute over 28 decimals of land situated in Lohardaga, Jharkhand. The dispute was initially resolved on April 25, 2005, when the Deputy Commissioner ordered the land to be delivered to the complainant’s family following the dismissal of the accused’s appeal.
However, a complaint was later filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, alleging that on May 22, 2005, the accused forcibly entered the complainant’s house, committed theft, and hurled caste-based abuses. The complainant, PW-3, claimed that some of the accused were armed with iron rods, broke into their home, stole items worth ₹3,000, and used derogatory language in front of local villagers.
The prosecution presented several witnesses, all of whom were 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). The investigation was initiated by PW-8, while PW-5 filed the chargesheet. PW-7, however, had no knowledge of the incident.
Upon detailed scrutiny, the Supreme Court found discrepancies between the complaint and the testimonies. Notably, the complaint mentioned the house as the place of occurrence, while the witnesses described the incident as having occurred on the disputed land. This contradiction raised serious questions about the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Furthermore, the Court noted that none of the witnesses provided evidence to substantiate the claims of house trespass, as there was no testimony confirming that the house lock was broken or that the accused entered the house.
Most significantly, the Court ruled that the requirements of Sections 3(1)(r), (s), and (f) of the SC/ST Act were not met. The alleged caste-based abuses were not made “within public view,” as only the complainant’s family members were present. Additionally, there was no evidence of forcible eviction or wrongful occupation to support charges under clause (f).
“On the above reasoning, we find absolutely no reason to sustain the conviction,” the bench stated, setting aside the judgments of both the Magistrate and the Jharkhand High Court. All five appellants were acquitted, and any bail bonds were ordered to be cancelled. The Court also disposed of all pending applications related to the case.
