☰
×
0  07 Apr, 2025
Listen in mins | Read in mins
EN
HI

Hutu Ansari@ Futu Ansar & Ors Vs. The State Of Jharkhand

  Supreme Court Of India Special Leave To Petition Criminal/6763/2023
Link copied!

Case Background

As per the case facts, the appellants were charged and convicted under the IPC and SC & ST Act by the Trial Court, with their conviction being upheld by the ...

Bench
Img Img
Applied Acts & Sections
Hello! How can I help you? 😊
Disclaimer: We do not store your data.
Document Text Version

2025 INSC 459 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2025

(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6763 of 2023)

HUTU ANSARI

@ FUTU ANSAR & ORS. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.The appellants were charged under Section

447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

1

and Section 3

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

2

. The Trial Court

1 “the I.P.C.”

2 “the SC & ST Act”

Page 1 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

convicted the nine accused arraigned by the

prosecution and sentenced them to undergo simple

imprisonment

3

of three months under Section 447

of the I.P.C. and S.I. of two years under Section 3 of

the SC & ST Act with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and

default sentence of S.I. of one month each. In the

appeal filed, the Learned Single Judge of the High

Court converted the sentence to six months S.I.

under SC & ST Act and three-month S.I. under

Section 447 of the I.P.C.; which were to run

concurrently. Accused nos. 1 to 3, 6 and 9 are the

appellants in the above case.

3.We heard Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, learned

counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishnu Sharma,

learned standing counsel for the respondent.

4.The genesis of the case is a land dispute

involving the complainant and her family and

3 “S.I.”

Page 2 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

accused nos. 2, 6 and 9 with respect to land

admeasuring 28 decimals in khata no. 116 plot no.

698, which eventually the accused were forced to

deliver to the complainant and her family vide Ext.-

5 on 25.04.2005; pursuant to the dismissal of an

appeal filed by the accused before the Court of

Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. The alleged

incident occurred on 22.05.2005 at about 7 a.m.

when the appellants along with the other accused

allegedly trespassed into the house/land of the

complainant and used derogatory terms, referring to

their caste.

5.The prosecution was launched by a complaint

filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973

4

numbered as Complaint Case No. 58 of

2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Lohardaga. The complaint was filed by PW-3 who is

4 “the Cr.P.C.”

Page 3 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

the wife of PW-1. It was specifically alleged that the

accused nos. 2 and 9 armed with iron rods along

with others formed into an unlawful assembly and

broke open the lock of the house of the complainant

at about 7 a.m. and committed theft of kitchen

utensils, rice, pulse and bed with bed sheet having a

total value of Rs. 3,000/-. It was also specifically

alleged that the accused persons threatened the

complainant and her husband and abused them

using their caste name, thus insulting and

humiliating them before the villagers. The

chargesheet was under Section 447 of the I.P.C. and

Section 3 of the SC & ST Act.

6.We have looked at the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, who are all related. PW-1

and PW-3 are husband and wife, PW-6 the brother

of PW-1, PW-2 the son of PW-6 and PW-4 the son of

PWs-1 and 3. PW-8 is the Officer who commenced

Page 4 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

the investigation and PW-5 is the Investigating

Officer who laid the chargesheet. PW-7 admitted in

chief-examination that he had no knowledge about

the occurrence.

7.Admittedly all the prosecution witnesses are

related and the specific case of the accused was that

due to the enmity, on account of the land dispute,

the accused were framed under the SC & ST Act

alleging house trespass. Section 3 of the Act charged

against the accused is not attracted for reason of the

allegations of derogatory terms being used against

the complainants, if at all true, was not in a public

place nor in the presence of any member of the

public. However, we see from the order of the Trial

Court that the specific allegation levelled was of

wrongful occupation or cultivation in any land

owned by or in the possession, allotted to or notified

by any competent authority to be allotted to a

Page 5 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

as coming out in sub-clause (f) of Section 3(1) of the

SC & ST Act. We cannot but notice that there is

also an allegation of derogatory terms having been

used in the presence of villagers, in the complaint

filed before the Judicial Magistrate, which brings in

clause (s) of Section 3(1) dealing with abusing any

member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

by caste name in a place within public view and

clause (r) relating to intentional insult or

intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of

SC & ST in any place within public view.

8.PW-1 is the husband of the de-facto

complainant who did not refer to a caste name and

only spoke of a derogatory term being used against

them. According to him the place of occurrence was

his field, where he was present at 7 a.m. on

Saturday, when the accused persons trespassed into

Page 6 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

the said land and abused the complainants and

ordered them to vacate. It was the specific statement

in cross-examination that there were no villagers

present at the time of occurrence and only his wife,

brother and nephew were present. PW-2 the

nephew of PW-1 spoke of an abuse being levelled

against him and his family members which abusive

term spoken of, was different from that deposed to

by PW-1. PW-3 the de facto complainant also spoke

of the occurrence being on the disputed land at

about 7 a.m. and spoke of the abuses levelled, in

consonance with PW-2. PW-4 spoke of a disputed

house being in the place of occurrence which he had

got possession from the accused. According to him,

he and his family members were abused as

‘Adivasis’ quite contrary to the allegation levelled by

PW-1 to 3. PW-6, the brother of PW-1 did not speak

about the occurrence and only spoke of one of the

Page 7 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

accused having forcefully constructed a house on

his land.

9.There is no clarity as to the place of

occurrence, whether it was at the residential

building in the disputed land or at the house of PW-

3. In this context, we once again look at the

complaint filed, which spoke of the house trespass

by breaking the lock of the house of the

complainant. However none of the witnesses spoke

of breaking a lock or trespass into the house and on

the contrary, claimed that the occurrence occurred

in a field; obviously to make out a case of the insult

levelled and abuses thrown, to be within public

view. As we noticed, there is nothing to indicate

that there was anybody present in the vicinity of the

alleged scene of occurrence, other than family

members of the complainant. When PW-1

categorically negatived the presence of any other

Page 8 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

person except himself, his wife, brother and his

nephew; at the scene of occurrence, it cannot be

said to have occurred in public view; thus, absolving

the accused of any offence under clause (r) or (s) of

Section 3 of the SC & ST Act. Insofar as clause (f) of

Section 3(1) of the Act, there is no allegation in the

complaint that the complainant and her family were

forcefully evicted from the land.

10.PW-1 specifically says that the place of

occurrence is at a distance of 1 km from his house.

He also submitted that there is a residential house

constructed in the disputed land by one of the

accused 20 years ago which house was remaining

deserted. With the above scenario in mind, we can

only find that the de-facto complainant, in the FIR,

had talked about the house in which she was

residing while alleging trespass on the accused

persons. However, no such allegation is even spoken

Page 9 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

of in the oral evidence; thus, putting to jeopardy the

offence of house trespass too.

11.We cannot but find that there are gross

inconsistencies insofar as the complaint and the

oral evidence led by way of deposition before the

Court. The place of occurrence was stated to be the

house, in the complaint, while all the witnesses

spoke of the alleged incident having occurred in the

field, which was the disputed land. In any event,

there is no scope for finding either clause (r) or (s) of

Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act since PW-1 has

categorically stated that there was no member of the

public present at the time the incident occurred.

Insofar as the allegation under clause (f) of Section

3(1) there is nothing to indicate that the

complainant and her family were forcefully evicted

from the disputed land or that the accused occupied

it illegally after delivery was effected on 25.04.2005.

Page 10 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

As far as the house trespass is concerned, the oral

evidence does not support it. On the above

reasoning we find absolutely no reason to sustain

the conviction as entered into by the Magistrate’s

Court confirmed by the High Court. We set aside

the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High

Court and acquit the appellants herein.

12.The bail bonds, if any, executed in the above

case shall stand cancelled.

13.The appeal stands allowed.

14.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

……………………..…., J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………..……………, J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 07, 2025.

Page 11 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No(s). 6763/2023

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order

dated 24-02-2023 in CRA(SJ) No. 360/2010 passed

by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi]

HUTU ANSARI @ FUTU ANSAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondent(s)

IA No. 88418/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF

THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 88415/2023 -

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 88424/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES

Date : 07-04-2025 This matter was called on for

pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR

Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv.

Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv.

Page 12 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran

pronounced the non-reportable Judgment of the

Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu

Dhulia and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The operative portion of the Judgment is

extracted as :-

“11.We cannot but find

that there are gross

inconsistencies insofar as

the complaint and the oral

evidence led by way of

deposition before the

Court. The place of

occurrence was stated to

be the house, in the

complaint, while all the

witnesses spoke of the

alleged incident having

occurred in the field,

which was the disputed

land. In any event, there

is no scope for finding

either clause (r) or (s)

of Section 3(1) of the SC

& ST Act since PW-1 has

Page 13 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

categorically stated that

there was no member of the

public present at the time

the incident occurred.

Insofar as the allegation

under clause (f) of

Section 3(1) there is

nothing to indicate that

the complainant and her

family were forcefully

evicted from the disputed

land or that the accused

occupied it illegally

after delivery was

effected on 25.04.2005.

As far as the house

trespass is concerned, the

oral evidence does not

support it. On the above

reasoning we find

absolutely no reason to

sustain the conviction as

entered into by the

Magistrate’s Court

confirmed by the High

Court. We set aside the

order of the Magistrate as

confirmed by the High

Court and acquit the

appellants herein.

Page 14 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

12. The bail bonds, if

any, executed in the above

case shall stand

cancelled.

13. The appeal stands

allowed.”

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,

is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed

on the file)

Page 15 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

Reference cases

Description

This significant ruling on **SC ST Act Public View** and **Criminal Trespass India** is now available on CaseOn, offering legal professionals insightful analysis into the evidentiary requirements for convictions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case, *Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand*, underscores the Supreme Court's meticulous approach to evaluating inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and stands as a crucial precedent on CaseOn for its detailed examination of the 'public view' criterion and the burden of proof in criminal matters.

Case Background: The Genesis of the Dispute

The dispute originated from a long-standing disagreement over 28 decimals of land in Lohardaga, Jharkhand. The land, identified by *khata no. 116, plot no. 698*, was eventually awarded to the complainant's family, prompting the accused to deliver possession on April 25, 2005, following the dismissal of their appeal. Barely a month later, on May 22, 2005, an alleged incident occurred where the appellants, along with others, were accused of trespassing onto the complainant’s property, committing theft, and using derogatory caste-based remarks. Initially, the Trial Court convicted nine accused individuals, sentencing them to simple imprisonment under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act. The High Court, on appeal, modified these sentences. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 then approached the Supreme Court.

The Legal Challenge: Issues Before the Supreme Court

At the heart of this appeal was whether the prosecution had presented sufficient and consistent evidence to prove the charges of criminal trespass and offenses under the SC & ST Act. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining:

Key Legal Provisions in Focus

  • **Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:** Pertaining to criminal trespass.
  • **Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:** Specifically clauses (f) (wrongful occupation/cultivation), (r) (intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in public view), and (s) (abusing by caste name in public view).
The primary legal issue revolved around the stringent requirement of offenses under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC & ST Act to occur **'within public view'**, and the factual inconsistencies surrounding the alleged house trespass.

Court's Scrutiny: Analysis of Evidence and Statutes

For legal professionals and students seeking to quickly grasp the nuances of judgments like *Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand*, CaseOn.in offers invaluable 2-minute audio briefs. These concise summaries provide a rapid yet comprehensive overview, making complex legal analysis accessible and efficient. The Supreme Court’s analysis in this case highlighted several critical points:

Discrepancies in the Prosecution's Case

The Court observed significant inconsistencies between the initial complaint and the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PWs). While the complaint alleged trespass into the complainant's house by breaking a lock and theft of household items, the witnesses, all related to the complainant, largely testified that the incident occurred in a 'field' or the 'disputed land,' not the residential house. This shift in the alleged scene of occurrence was pivotal.

Application of SC & ST Act Provisions

For charges under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC & ST Act, the crucial element is that the derogatory acts must occur 'within public view.' PW-1, the complainant's husband, explicitly stated in cross-examination that only his wife, brother, and nephew were present at the scene of the incident. There was no evidence to suggest the presence of any other member of the public. This absence of public presence directly undermined the prosecution's ability to establish the 'public view' requirement for these clauses. Regarding Section 3(1)(f), which deals with wrongful occupation or forceful eviction from land allotted to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe member, the Court found no allegations in the complaint or supporting oral evidence that the complainants were forcefully evicted or that the accused illegally occupied the land *after* it was delivered on April 25, 2005.

The IPC Charge: House Trespass

The charge of house trespass under Section 447 IPC also faltered. Given the witnesses' testimonies shifting the place of occurrence from a 'house' (as stated in the complaint) to a 'field' (the disputed land), the oral evidence failed to substantiate the specific allegation of house trespass by breaking a lock. The Court found the evidence for this charge equally weak and inconsistent.

The Supreme Court's Verdict: A Critical Reversal

Considering the glaring inconsistencies between the complaint and the oral evidence, particularly regarding the place of occurrence and the absence of any public witnesses for the SC & ST Act charges, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found absolutely no reason to sustain the convictions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions entered by the Magistrate's Court and confirmed by the High Court. The appellants were acquitted, and their bail bonds were cancelled. The appeal was allowed.

Why This Judgment Matters: Insights for Legal Professionals and Students

This judgment is an important read for lawyers and students because it meticulously highlights:
  • **The significance of consistent evidence:** It underscores how discrepancies between the initial complaint and witness testimonies can fatally undermine a criminal case.
  • **Strict interpretation of 'public view':** It reinforces the critical requirement for offenses under specific clauses of the SC & ST Act to occur 'within public view,' and how the absence of independent public witnesses can lead to acquittal.
  • **Burden of Proof:** It serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies squarely with the prosecution, and mere allegations, if not consistently supported by credible evidence, cannot lead to conviction.
  • **Appellate Scrutiny:** It showcases the Supreme Court's role in correcting miscarriages of justice where lower courts may have overlooked fundamental evidentiary flaws.

Disclaimer

All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues.

Legal Notes

Add a Note....