Lawtext - Where Words Transform into Power!

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Public View. Land Dispute and Caste-Based Allegations Fail to Sustain Conviction Under SC & ST Act

by Admin

Summary of Judgement

Inconsistent Evidence: The Supreme Court found gross inconsistencies between the complaint (alleging house trespass) and witness testimonies (claiming incident occurred in a field). (Para 11) Lack of Public View: Offences under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC & ST Act were not made out as no member of the public was present during the alleged incident, as per PW-1’s testimony. (Para 9) No Forceful Eviction: Clause (f) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act was not attracted as there was no evidence of forceful eviction or illegal occupation of the disputed land. (Para 10) House Trespass Unsubstantiated: Oral evidence did not support the allegation of house trespass under Section 447 of the IPC. (Para 11) The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside the convictions due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies. (Para 11-13)

Major Acts:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 447 (Criminal Trespass)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) – Section 3(1)(f), (r), (s)

Subjects:
Inconsistent evidence, Public view, Caste-based abuse, Acquittal, Land dispute

Facts:

Nature of the Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act.

Remedy Sought: Appellants sought acquittal, challenging the Trial Court and High Court’s convictions.

Reason for Filing: Alleged trespass and caste-based abuse during a land dispute on 22.05.2005.

Prior Decisions: Trial Court convicted the accused, and the High Court enhanced the sentence.

Issues:

Whether the allegations under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC & ST Act were proven, given the absence of public view?

Whether the evidence supported the charge of house trespass under Section 447 of the IPC?

Submissions/Arguments:
Appellants: Argued that the case was framed due to enmity from a land dispute, and the alleged abuse was not in public view.
Respondent (State): Relied on the complaint and witness testimonies to sustain the conviction.

Ratio:
For offences under the SC & ST Act, the presence of public view is essential under clauses (r) and (s).
Inconsistent evidence between the complaint and witness testimonies can vitiate the prosecution’s case.

Latin Terms:
Prima facie: Not established due to inconsistencies.