Legal provision involved: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Sections 323 and 354 of IPC

Judgement by: Supreme Court 

Judge/Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih 

Facts

Two men, Dadu (also called Ankush) and Ankit, were convicted by the trial court and the High Court for assault and offences under the SC/ST Act. The complaint claimed they entered the victim’s house, physically attacked her and her brother, and hurt the brother when he tried to stop them. One relative (PW-4) initially gave evidence supporting the prosecution but later turned hostile.

Key legal provisions involved

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act)
• Sections 323 and 354 of IPC (Now Section 115 and 74 of BNS, 2023)

Issues raised

• Whether the testimony of a hostile witness be completely ignored?
• Whether the prosecution’s story, based on interested witnesses and conflicting with medical evidence, is strong enough to support conviction?
• Should conviction stand when credible evidence suggests a different version of events?

Arguments of the case

Conviction was based on the victim’s and her brother’s testimony, backed by the trial record. PW‑4 said injuries happened during a scuffle at a festival, not in the house. Medical reports did not show serious injuries. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that a hostile witness’s testimony cannot be ignored entirely. Parts of PW‑4’s statement supporting the defence were accepted. Since medical evidence did not support serious assault, the High Court’s conviction was overturned, and the accused were acquitted.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.