Supreme Court Allows Acquittal Where Evidence Fails to Show Public View or House Trespass

A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard an appeal under Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 challenging convictions entered by the Magistrate’s Court and affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court. The appellants had been convicted under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for an alleged incident of trespass, theft and caste-based abuse arising from a land dispute.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies which precluded sustaining offences under clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act or house trespass under Section 447 IPC. The Court observed that the witnesses were closely related and their testimony did not support the allegations that the abuse occurred “in a place within public view” or that the complainant was forcefully evicted or dispossessed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We cannot but find that there are gross inconsistencies insofar as 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. In any event, there is no scope for finding either clause (r) or (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act since PW-1 has categorically stated that there was no member of the public present at the time the incident occurred. Insofar as the allegation under clause (f) of Section 3(1) there is 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 on 25.04.2005. As far as the house trespass is concerned, the oral evidence does not support it. 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.”

Background

The dispute arose from possession of 28 decimals of land in Lohardaga (khata no.116, plot no.698). The land had been declared delivered to the complainant’s family on 25.04.2005 following dismissal of an appeal by the accused. The alleged incident took place on 22.05.2005 at about 7 a.m., when the prosecution alleged that the accused trespassed into the complainant’s house/land, abused the family by caste epithets and stole household articles worth approximately Rs.3,000. A complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a chargesheet was framed under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act. The trial court convicted nine accused and sentenced them; the High Court in appeal altered the sentence but confirmed conviction.

On appeal to this Court, the defence contended that the case was a product of enmity arising from the land dispute and relied on contradictions between the written complaint and oral testimony. The prosecution witnesses were family members of the complainant and their accounts diverged on the place of occurrence and the nature of the abusive words used. PW‑1 expressly denied the presence of any villagers or public at the scene. The Supreme Court found the complaint and oral evidence to be inconsistent, noted absence of proof that the alleged abuse occurred “in a place within public view” or that forcible eviction had taken place, and concluded that the ingredients of the SC & ST Act and house trespass were not made out. The Court acquitted the appellants, ordered that “the bail bonds, if any, executed in the above case shall stand cancelled,” and allowed the appeal. No precedent was overruled; the Court decided the matter on facts and legal elements required under the relevant clauses of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act and Section 447 IPC.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 459 (Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023) Case Title: Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Advocate-on-Record For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel; Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR; Mr. Dipankar Singh, Advocate; Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Advocate