Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih on Monday, December 8, set aside the convictions of two accused under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, directing that they be released and discharged from their bail bonds. Hearing a challenge to findings of guilt for alleged assault and sexual harassment of a young woman and for causing injuries to her brother, the Court held that the evidence of a witness cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because the witness is declared hostile, and that portions of such testimony which align with the case of the prosecution or the defence may still be acted upon while determining whether the charges stand proved.

The case arises from an incident on 4 October 2015, when a young woman reported that two local men came to her house at night, asked if anyone was present, and, after learning that her father was away, one of them allegedly pulled her dupatta, caught her neck and scratched it when she tried to run. Her brother, who was at a nearby Ganesh festival, is said to have rushed home on hearing her, where both accused allegedly assaulted and abused him. On this complaint, an FIR was registered, investigation was conducted, witnesses’ statements were recorded, and a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 354, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

Also Read: Work-From-Home Status No Basis To Prefer One Parent For Child Custody; Supreme Court Dismisses Mother’s Appeal In Child Custody Revision Case

At trial, the prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of the victim (PW-1), her brother (PW-2), a relative witness (PW-4) and the medical officer (PW-5). PW-1 and PW-2 described the alleged teasing, assault and injuries, while PW-5 noted simple scratch injuries on the victim’s neck and on PW-2’s chest and eyebrow, and accepted that such injuries could occur from a fall or dragging on the ground. PW-4, though later treated as hostile, spoke of a scuffle at a crowded Ganesh Puja pandal. The defence questioned inconsistencies between the FIR, oral evidence and medical findings, and highlighted the absence of independent local witnesses.

The Court observed that "it is in his evidence that many people from the locality had come and had seen the incident" and noted that "it would appear strange that none from the locality was produced in the court as a prosecution witness." It further recorded that "the fact that no member of the public rushed to rescue the victim when she was being teased by the appellants is also a circumstance to find the testimony of PW-2 unbelievable. We have, therefore, come to the ineluctable conclusion that PW-2 has not been truthful."

Examining the medical and ocular evidence, the Court stated that "If the statement of the victim is contrasted with the statement of PW-2, we find it improbable that victim’s loud screams could only reach the ears of PW-2 and no one else’s considering that a large number of members of the public were present for the Ganesh Puja celebrations (as per the version of PW-2 himself)."

On PW-4 and hostile witnesses, the Court recorded that "It is also important to note the deposition of PW-4" and that "The High Court did not refer to the evidence of PW-4 simply on the ground that he had turned hostile, in ignorance of the law relating to appreciation of the evidence of a witness who has been declared hostile." It then stated: "A profitable reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra wherein it was held 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. It would rather have to be subjected to closer scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. The mere rejection of the evidence of PW-4 in the manner aforesaid is contrary to the law laid down by this Court."

Also Read: Non-Examination Of First Investigating Officer Not Fatal If Place Of Occurrence Is Otherwise Proved: Patna High Court

Regarding the SC/ST allegation and overall narrative, the Court observed that "Curiously, there appears to be no statement in court in course of trial by the victim that A-2 committed the alleged offence only because of the victim being a member of Scheduled Caste. No such statement was even made by PW-2. The finding returned by the High Court is, thus, perverse." It concluded that "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" and that "Insofar as the victim is concerned, as noted above, she has not attributed any offensive act to A-1. Her version of A-2 pulling her dupatta and the appellants beating PW-2 also do not inspire confidence, in view of the aforesaid discussions."

The Court directed that “The conviction and sentence of the appellants being indefensible, stand set aside. They are set free and discharged from their bail bonds.  The appeal, thus, stands allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. B. P. Singh, D.A.G. Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh GA, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Nakul Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Anil Gaur, Adv.

Case Title: Dadu @ Ankush & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1395
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ………….. of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10759/2024]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih