Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005301-005301 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 28111/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996 10 SCC 360) |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – evidence appreciation; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether convictions for simple hurt and SC/ST offences can be upheld on contradictory testimony and in absence of independent or post-occurrence witnesses; proper scope for accepting hostile-witness evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that material discrepancies between the FIR and trial deposition, absence of any independent or post-occurrence eyewitnesses despite alleged public setting, and injuries consistent with falling rather than assault, require acquittal. A hostile witness’s supportive statements must be scrutinised and partly accepted where consistent with other evidence (State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra). Mere allegation of caste-based motive without oral admission by the victim or brother cannot sustain SC/ST Act conviction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Victim (PW-1) alleged that Accused 1 enquired about presence at home, then Accused 2 scratched her neck and beat her brother (PW-2); FIR registered under IPC 323, 354, 294, 34 and SC/ST Act 3(1)(xi); appellants convicted by Special Court and appeal dismissed by High Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996 10 SCC 360) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court emphasises the necessity of credible, consistent testimony and independent witnesses in SC/ST and simple hurt cases.
- Contradictions between FIR and deposition can be fatal to prosecution’s case.
- Hostile witnesses may be partly accepted if their testimony aligns with other evidence (per Ramesh Prasad Misra).
- Mere assertion of caste-based motive without direct oral evidence in court is insufficient for SC/ST Act convictions.
- Absence of recovery of alleged weapon and medical findings consistent with a fall support acquittal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Discrepancies in versions
- FIR vs. PW-1: A-2 accompanied vs. was telephoned.
- PW-1’s screams unlikely to go unheard amid crowd, yet no public witnesses produced.
-
Hostile‐witness evidence
- PW-4, though declared hostile, gave exculpatory account; partial acceptance mandated by Ramesh Prasad Misra.
-
Medical evidence
- PW-5 found only simple scratch injuries; admitted these could result from falls or dragging, undermining assault theory.
-
No independent witnesses
- Alleged crowd at Ganesh Puja but no single bystander examined; prosecution failed to call any post‐occurrence witnesses.
-
SC/ST Act element
- High Court’s finding of caste‐based offence unfounded—neither PW-1 nor PW-2 deposed to motive linked to victim’s Scheduled Caste status.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Prosecution evidence riddled with contradictions (FIR vs. depositions).
- No independent or post-occurrence eyewitness despite crowded setting.
- Hostile witness evidence supports defence version of a scuffle, not assault.
- Medical report indicates simple injuries consistent with falls, not intentional assault.
Respondent
- No detailed respondent arguments recorded; conviction rested on victim’s testimony and medical findings.
Factual Background
On 4 October 2015 the victim lodged a complaint alleging that Accused 1 first inquired at her home, then Accused 2 scratched her neck and assaulted her brother, invoking IPC 323, 354, 294, 34 and SC/ST Act 3(1)(xi). The Special Court convicted both appellants; the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave and examined reliability of the evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- IPC Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and Section 354 (assault with sexual intent) require proof of intentional assault.
- SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(xi) requires offence committed on account of victim’s Scheduled Caste status; absence of direct evidence of motive fatal.
- No reading‐down or constitutional provisions invoked beyond standard application.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms the principles in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra regarding hostile witnesses.