Supreme Court sets aside convictions where prosecution evidence was inconsistent and hostile witness went uncorroborated

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, which had dismissed an appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC by two men convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeal challenged convictions and concurrent sentences imposed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) arising from an FIR dated 04.10.2015.

The Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and discharged the appellants from their bail bonds. The bench found material discrepancies in the prosecution case, held that key eyewitness testimony was not reliable and that injuries were consistent with an alternative explanation. The Court noted that the High Court’s finding that the offences were committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” was not supported by evidence in court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In our view, the defence has been successful in placing a probable and believable account of a scuffle having broken out between PW-2 and the appellants at the Ganesh Puja pandal, which might have prompted PW-2 to set up a false story of commission of offence on the victim. Such scuffle could have resulted in PW-2 falling on the ground and suffering injuries which were ultimately found on his person by PW-5.” The Court also reiterated that “it is settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of either the prosecution or the accused,” and found it “ineluctable” that PW-2’s evidence was not truthful.

Background The dispute arose from a complaint by a young woman who alleged that on 04.10.2015 two men came to her house, one of them pulled her dupatta and assaulted her while the other called his companion; her younger brother rushed to intervene and was beaten. The Special Court convicted the first appellant under Section 323 IPC and the second appellant under Sections 354 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, imposing concurrent terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal.

At trial the prosecutrix (PW-1) described being teased and sustaining a scratch on her neck; her brother (PW-2) testified that both accused assaulted him and that blood oozed from his head and chest. The medical officer (PW-5) recorded simple injuries and stated that such injuries could result if a person fell or was dragged. The defence pointed to discrepancies between the FIR and courtroom testimony as to whether the second accused accompanied the first, to the absence of any named bystanders despite PW-2’s claim that many locals had witnessed the incident during a crowded Ganesh Puja, and to variances between the victims’ accounts and medical findings. A prosecution witness (PW-4) turned hostile and gave evidence suggesting a scuffle arising from overcrowding at the pandal rather than an assault; the trial court and High Court had not given full effect to that hostile testimony.

Applying established principles on evaluation of hostile witnesses (citing State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra), the Supreme Court held that portions of hostile testimony consistent with the defence warranted acceptance and that material infirmities in the prosecution case precluded conviction. The Court found no reliable evidence that the alleged acts were committed because the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The criminal appeal was allowed, convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were discharged from their bail bonds. No interim directions were made.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1395 Case Title: Dadu @ Ankush & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment