Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1395
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ………….. OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 10759/2024]
DADU @ ANKUSH & ANR. … APPELLANTS
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the two appellants,
Dadu @ Ankush (A-1) and Ankit (A-2). It is directed against the
th
judgment and order dated 18 January, 2024 of a learned Judge of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur of dismissal of an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.08
15:10:15 IST
Reason:
1
1
appeal under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
preferred by the appellants.
2
2. Appellants stood trial in a case registered on the basis of a complaint
3
lodged by the respondent no. 2 before the Special Judge, Scheduled
4
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .
The Special Court convicted A-1 under Section 323, Indian Penal
5
Code, 1860 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3
months together with fine of Rs.1000/- with default term. A-2 was
convicted under Sections 354 and 323, IPC as well as Section 3(1)(xi)
of the SC/ST Act. For the offences under Section 354, and Section
3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, A-2 was sentenced to a year’s rigorous
imprisonment each together with fine of Rs.1000/-. For the offence
under Section 323, IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for 3 months and fine of Rs.1000/-. The sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
3. Appellants carried the conviction and sentence in appeal before the
High Court which, by the aforementioned judgment and order,
dismissed the appeal.
4. In the written complaint lodged by the victim giving rise to the First
6
Information Report , it was alleged as follows:
1
Crl. Appeal No. 7239 of 2019
2
Special Case No. 200010 of 2016
3
victim
4
SC/ST Act
5
IPC
6
FIR
2
“I live in Sawargaon, Amba Ward, Padhurna. I study in class 11. My
family consists of my mother, father, dadi and younger brother Pawan.
On 04/10/2015 my mother, father and dadi had gone for hawking to
Ambada market and around 10:30 at night my brother was in the Ganesh
Utsav organized nearby our house. I was at home. Dadu Pendse of my
locality came along with his friend Ankit Kevte and enquired from the
gate of the house, if any one is there, I came out on which Dadu Pendse
asked isn’t there any one in the house, to which I replied that my father
has gone to the market. On listening to his Ankit Kevta caught hold of my
dupatta, I pulled back my dupatta and asked him to leave it, on which
he caught hold of my neck with bad intention. I shouted and tried to run
away due to which he scratched my neck. My brother Pawan came to
save me upon listening my voice, on which both of them gave him
beating and abused him. Ankit Kevte belongs to Teli cast and despite
knowing that I belong to Schedule Cast (sic, Caste), he teased me,
beaten and abused my brother. I have come to lodge the report along
with my brother Pawan. I have lodged the report. Action be taken.”
5. Paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and order records the
prosecution’s case. We consider it appropriate to reproduce the same
hereunder:
“2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
on 04.10.2015, the prosecutrix lodged a report that she was in her house
and her brother had gone to attend a program of Ganesh Ji. At that time,
the appellants came there and inquired as to whether there is anybody
in the house or not. When the prosecutrix informed that her father has
gone to the market, then the appellant No.2 caught hold of her chunni
and with evil intention caught hold of her neck. When she tried to run
away, the appellant No.2 scratched her neck. When her brother came
running to save her, then he too was also assaulted and he was abused
filthily. The police lodged the FIR, arrested the appellants, recorded the
statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation filed
the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 354, 294, 323, 34 of IPC and
under Section 3 (1) 11 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”
6. In her examination-in-chief, the victim (as PW-1) deposed as follows:
“3. The accused Dadu present in the court, came to my house and asked
if there was anyone in the house or not, to which I replied that no one is
there. Then accused Dadu called someone from his mobile phone and
after a while, the boy standing with the accused Dadu, also came to my
house. I was standing on the staircase of my house suddenly when the
boy standing with the accused Dadu pulled my dupatta. I screamed
loudly and my brother Pawan who was 16 years old at the time of
3
incident came to the house. The boy standing with Dadu also injured me
on my back through nail marks. As soon as my brother Pawan came to
rescue me, he was also beaten up by the both the accused present in
the court. He got injuries on his head, hand and chest. Bleeding also
oozed from head and chest.”
7. From the written complaint giving rise to the FIR as well as the
victim’s deposition in court, it is clear that qua the victim, A-1 did not
touch the victim. His role is confined to enquiring from the victim as
to whether anyone was in her house or not. Insofar as A-2 being
called on phone by A-1 is concerned, the version in the written
complaint is at variance. Allegedly, A-2 had accompanied A-1. Qua
her brother (PW-2), the victim deposed that both the appellants beat
him and he received injuries on his head, hand and chest. Blood also
oozed from his head and chest. Significantly, the victim did not
depose in court that A-2, knowing that she and her brother belonged
to Scheduled Caste, teased her and beat and abused him.
8. The victim’s brother (PW-2) stepped into the box and deposed as
follows in course of his examination-in-chief:
“2. The incident happened about 2-3 years ago. The incident took place
at 8:00-8:15 pm at night when I was at the temple with my friends. My
house is near the temple, I got the information about the fight happening
in my house so I ran home and found the accused Dadu alias Ankush
who is present in the court and another boy whose name came to be
known as Ankit and my sister was there. Both the accused were teasing
my sister. Accused Ankit had already pulled my sister’s dupatta and
there were nail marks on her back. When I intervened, both the accused
beat me with their hands and with the wood kept near the stove, due to
which I got injured on my nose and mouth and there was bleeding. The
accused ran away after assaulting me.
3. There was no one else at my house except my sister. At the time of the
incident, many people from the locality had come and had seen the
incident. Thereafter I along with my sister reached the Pandhurna police
4
station where she filed a report about the incident. After the report, …
and I were sent to Pandhurna hospital for medical examination and
where both of us were medically examined and treated.”
9. The evidence of PW-2 reveals that he was at the Ganesh temple when
he got information about a fight happening in his house and, as such,
he ran home to find A-1 and A-2 teasing the victim (her sister). From
whom PW-2 obtained information is not disclosed. Though not being
present at the relevant time, he deposed that A-2 had pulled the
dupatta of the victim and scratched her back with nails. Upon
intervening, the appellants beat him with a wood (kept near the
stove) resulting in PW-2 suffering bleeding injury on his nose and
mouth. It is also in his evidence that many people from the locality
had come and had seen the incident.
10. From the evidence on record before the trial court, it is revealed that
on the next day of the incident, the victim and PW-2 were examined
by the medical officer (PW-5). Insofar as the injuries suffered by
them are concerned, PW-5 stated as follows:
“1. *
1. A scratch mark on the back of the neck with length 4 to 5 cm.
2. The said injury was simple in nature and seemed to have been
caused by a hard and blunt object. It was occurred within 4 to 5
hours of testing. The report given by me Exhibit P-6 which bears my
signature at point A to A.
3. *
1. There was a scratch mark on his chest of size about 1 cm X 1/2
cm.
2. A scratch mark above the eyebrow of the left eye, of size about 1
cm in length.
4. According to my opinion, the above-mentioned injuries were simple in
nature and seemed to be caused by a hard and blunt object. They were of
within 4 to 5 hours of examination. The report given by me Exhibit P-7 bears
my signature at point A to A.”
5
11. In his cross-examination, PW-5 deposed as follows:
“5. It is correct to say that if a person falls or gets dragged on the ground, it
is possible to get both the above-mentioned injuries in such a situation.”
12. Having considered the evidence led by the prosecution, there appears
to be a discrepancy as to whether A-2 accompanied A-1 when A-1
came to the house of the victim and enquired about the availability
of her family members.
13. While the FIR version is that the A-2 had accompanied A-1, in court,
she deposed that A1 had called A2 on phone whereafter he arrived.
This discrepancy, however, may not be too material for the purpose
of a decision on this appeal because of other more glaring
discrepances which we propose to highlight now.
14. However, what has struck us is the deposition of PW-2 that many
people from the locality had come and seen the incident. Not only did
PW-2 not name any person from the locality who had seen the
incident, not a single witness from the locality was examined who had
seen the incident. No post-occurrence witness, having heard of the
incident, was also examined.
15. That apart, the evidence of PW-5 does suggest that the injuries which
were suffered by both the victim and PW-2 could have been possible
if someone falls or gets dragged on the ground. It is also noteworthy
that the injuries found on the person of both the victim and PW-2
were simple injuries which, according to PW-5, seem to have been
6
caused by a hard and blunt object. PW-2 had referred to a wood by
which he was struck by the appellants but such wood was not
recovered and exhibited.
16. Although the victim had deposed of being injured by A2 on her back
through nail mark, the same (nail mark) does not find mention in the
deposition of PW-5. It is also noteworthy that while PW-2 deposed
that he was injured on his nose and mouth and there was bleeding,
no injury on the nose and mouth appear to have been found by PW-
5. That PW-2 suffered injury on his nose and mouth is belied by the
deposition of the victim, who deposed that PW-2 was bleeding from
the head and chest.
17. It is in the evidence of the victim that when A-2 pulled her dupatta,
she screamed loudly prompting PW-2 to rush to the house. PW-2,
however, did not say that he rushed to the house on hearing the
victim’s scream. He said, someone had informed him of a fight in his
house. 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).
18. At this stage, it is also apposite to highlight that as per PW-2, many
people from the locality had come and seen the incident, hence, it
would appear strange that none from the locality was produced in the
court as a prosecution witness. While it is within the realm of
7
possibility, 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.
19. It is also important to note the deposition of PW-4. Though related to
the victim and PW-2, he deposed that the pandal of Ganesh Puja was
overcrowded and peoples’ feet were touching each other due to which
PW-2 felt that A-1 and A-2 had stepped on PW-2’s feet. This resulted
in a scuffle breaking out between A-1 and A-2 on the one hand and
PW-2 on the other. Though PW-4 was declared hostile after he made
the above statement, he was subjected to cross-examination by the
Public Prosecutor. Notably, it is in his evidence that it was wrong to
suggest that PW-2 was assaulted by A-1 and A-2. 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. A profitable
reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of U.P.
7
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
7
(1996) 10 SCC 360
8
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.
20. The High Court further observed that from the statements of the
appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC, it was clear that they
knew PW-1 belonging to Scheduled Caste. An abrupt finding was
recorded that “it is clear that the offence was committed by the
appellants simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to
scheduled caste.” 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.
21. In our view, 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, which might have
prompted PW-2 to set up a false story of commission of offence on
the victim. Such scuffle could have resulted in PW-2 falling on the
ground and suffering injuries which were ultimately found on his
person by PW-5.
22. 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. What remains is the
9
scratch on the back of her neck. We do not see reason to hold, in
view of the evidence of PW-5 and our above findings, that A-2 ought
to be held guilty of an offence under Section 323, IPC.
23. The conviction and sentence of the appellants being indefensible,
stand set aside. They are set free and discharged from their bail
bonds.
24. The appeal, thus, stands allowed.
………………………………….……J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………………………….…………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 08, 2025.
10
2025 INSC 1395
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ………….. OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 10759/2024]
DADU @ ANKUSH & ANR. … APPELLANTS
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the two appellants,
Dadu @ Ankush (A-1) and Ankit (A-2). It is directed against the
th
judgment and order dated 18 January, 2024 of a learned Judge of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur of dismissal of an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.08
15:10:15 IST
Reason:
1
1
appeal under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
preferred by the appellants.
2
2. Appellants stood trial in a case registered on the basis of a complaint
3
lodged by the respondent no. 2 before the Special Judge, Scheduled
4
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .
The Special Court convicted A-1 under Section 323, Indian Penal
5
Code, 1860 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3
months together with fine of Rs.1000/- with default term. A-2 was
convicted under Sections 354 and 323, IPC as well as Section 3(1)(xi)
of the SC/ST Act. For the offences under Section 354, and Section
3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, A-2 was sentenced to a year’s rigorous
imprisonment each together with fine of Rs.1000/-. For the offence
under Section 323, IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for 3 months and fine of Rs.1000/-. The sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
3. Appellants carried the conviction and sentence in appeal before the
High Court which, by the aforementioned judgment and order,
dismissed the appeal.
4. In the written complaint lodged by the victim giving rise to the First
6
Information Report , it was alleged as follows:
1
Crl. Appeal No. 7239 of 2019
2
Special Case No. 200010 of 2016
3
victim
4
SC/ST Act
5
IPC
6
FIR
2
“I live in Sawargaon, Amba Ward, Padhurna. I study in class 11. My
family consists of my mother, father, dadi and younger brother Pawan.
On 04/10/2015 my mother, father and dadi had gone for hawking to
Ambada market and around 10:30 at night my brother was in the Ganesh
Utsav organized nearby our house. I was at home. Dadu Pendse of my
locality came along with his friend Ankit Kevte and enquired from the
gate of the house, if any one is there, I came out on which Dadu Pendse
asked isn’t there any one in the house, to which I replied that my father
has gone to the market. On listening to his Ankit Kevta caught hold of my
dupatta, I pulled back my dupatta and asked him to leave it, on which
he caught hold of my neck with bad intention. I shouted and tried to run
away due to which he scratched my neck. My brother Pawan came to
save me upon listening my voice, on which both of them gave him
beating and abused him. Ankit Kevte belongs to Teli cast and despite
knowing that I belong to Schedule Cast (sic, Caste), he teased me,
beaten and abused my brother. I have come to lodge the report along
with my brother Pawan. I have lodged the report. Action be taken.”
5. Paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and order records the
prosecution’s case. We consider it appropriate to reproduce the same
hereunder:
“2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
on 04.10.2015, the prosecutrix lodged a report that she was in her house
and her brother had gone to attend a program of Ganesh Ji. At that time,
the appellants came there and inquired as to whether there is anybody
in the house or not. When the prosecutrix informed that her father has
gone to the market, then the appellant No.2 caught hold of her chunni
and with evil intention caught hold of her neck. When she tried to run
away, the appellant No.2 scratched her neck. When her brother came
running to save her, then he too was also assaulted and he was abused
filthily. The police lodged the FIR, arrested the appellants, recorded the
statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation filed
the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 354, 294, 323, 34 of IPC and
under Section 3 (1) 11 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”
6. In her examination-in-chief, the victim (as PW-1) deposed as follows:
“3. The accused Dadu present in the court, came to my house and asked
if there was anyone in the house or not, to which I replied that no one is
there. Then accused Dadu called someone from his mobile phone and
after a while, the boy standing with the accused Dadu, also came to my
house. I was standing on the staircase of my house suddenly when the
boy standing with the accused Dadu pulled my dupatta. I screamed
loudly and my brother Pawan who was 16 years old at the time of
3
incident came to the house. The boy standing with Dadu also injured me
on my back through nail marks. As soon as my brother Pawan came to
rescue me, he was also beaten up by the both the accused present in
the court. He got injuries on his head, hand and chest. Bleeding also
oozed from head and chest.”
7. From the written complaint giving rise to the FIR as well as the
victim’s deposition in court, it is clear that qua the victim, A-1 did not
touch the victim. His role is confined to enquiring from the victim as
to whether anyone was in her house or not. Insofar as A-2 being
called on phone by A-1 is concerned, the version in the written
complaint is at variance. Allegedly, A-2 had accompanied A-1. Qua
her brother (PW-2), the victim deposed that both the appellants beat
him and he received injuries on his head, hand and chest. Blood also
oozed from his head and chest. Significantly, the victim did not
depose in court that A-2, knowing that she and her brother belonged
to Scheduled Caste, teased her and beat and abused him.
8. The victim’s brother (PW-2) stepped into the box and deposed as
follows in course of his examination-in-chief:
“2. The incident happened about 2-3 years ago. The incident took place
at 8:00-8:15 pm at night when I was at the temple with my friends. My
house is near the temple, I got the information about the fight happening
in my house so I ran home and found the accused Dadu alias Ankush
who is present in the court and another boy whose name came to be
known as Ankit and my sister was there. Both the accused were teasing
my sister. Accused Ankit had already pulled my sister’s dupatta and
there were nail marks on her back. When I intervened, both the accused
beat me with their hands and with the wood kept near the stove, due to
which I got injured on my nose and mouth and there was bleeding. The
accused ran away after assaulting me.
3. There was no one else at my house except my sister. At the time of the
incident, many people from the locality had come and had seen the
incident. Thereafter I along with my sister reached the Pandhurna police
4
station where she filed a report about the incident. After the report, …
and I were sent to Pandhurna hospital for medical examination and
where both of us were medically examined and treated.”
9. The evidence of PW-2 reveals that he was at the Ganesh temple when
he got information about a fight happening in his house and, as such,
he ran home to find A-1 and A-2 teasing the victim (her sister). From
whom PW-2 obtained information is not disclosed. Though not being
present at the relevant time, he deposed that A-2 had pulled the
dupatta of the victim and scratched her back with nails. Upon
intervening, the appellants beat him with a wood (kept near the
stove) resulting in PW-2 suffering bleeding injury on his nose and
mouth. It is also in his evidence that many people from the locality
had come and had seen the incident.
10. From the evidence on record before the trial court, it is revealed that
on the next day of the incident, the victim and PW-2 were examined
by the medical officer (PW-5). Insofar as the injuries suffered by
them are concerned, PW-5 stated as follows:
“1. *
1. A scratch mark on the back of the neck with length 4 to 5 cm.
2. The said injury was simple in nature and seemed to have been
caused by a hard and blunt object. It was occurred within 4 to 5
hours of testing. The report given by me Exhibit P-6 which bears my
signature at point A to A.
3. *
1. There was a scratch mark on his chest of size about 1 cm X 1/2
cm.
2. A scratch mark above the eyebrow of the left eye, of size about 1
cm in length.
4. According to my opinion, the above-mentioned injuries were simple in
nature and seemed to be caused by a hard and blunt object. They were of
within 4 to 5 hours of examination. The report given by me Exhibit P-7 bears
my signature at point A to A.”
5
11. In his cross-examination, PW-5 deposed as follows:
“5. It is correct to say that if a person falls or gets dragged on the ground, it
is possible to get both the above-mentioned injuries in such a situation.”
12. Having considered the evidence led by the prosecution, there appears
to be a discrepancy as to whether A-2 accompanied A-1 when A-1
came to the house of the victim and enquired about the availability
of her family members.
13. While the FIR version is that the A-2 had accompanied A-1, in court,
she deposed that A1 had called A2 on phone whereafter he arrived.
This discrepancy, however, may not be too material for the purpose
of a decision on this appeal because of other more glaring
discrepances which we propose to highlight now.
14. However, what has struck us is the deposition of PW-2 that many
people from the locality had come and seen the incident. Not only did
PW-2 not name any person from the locality who had seen the
incident, not a single witness from the locality was examined who had
seen the incident. No post-occurrence witness, having heard of the
incident, was also examined.
15. That apart, the evidence of PW-5 does suggest that the injuries which
were suffered by both the victim and PW-2 could have been possible
if someone falls or gets dragged on the ground. It is also noteworthy
that the injuries found on the person of both the victim and PW-2
were simple injuries which, according to PW-5, seem to have been
6
caused by a hard and blunt object. PW-2 had referred to a wood by
which he was struck by the appellants but such wood was not
recovered and exhibited.
16. Although the victim had deposed of being injured by A2 on her back
through nail mark, the same (nail mark) does not find mention in the
deposition of PW-5. It is also noteworthy that while PW-2 deposed
that he was injured on his nose and mouth and there was bleeding,
no injury on the nose and mouth appear to have been found by PW-
5. That PW-2 suffered injury on his nose and mouth is belied by the
deposition of the victim, who deposed that PW-2 was bleeding from
the head and chest.
17. It is in the evidence of the victim that when A-2 pulled her dupatta,
she screamed loudly prompting PW-2 to rush to the house. PW-2,
however, did not say that he rushed to the house on hearing the
victim’s scream. He said, someone had informed him of a fight in his
house. 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).
18. At this stage, it is also apposite to highlight that as per PW-2, many
people from the locality had come and seen the incident, hence, it
would appear strange that none from the locality was produced in the
court as a prosecution witness. While it is within the realm of
7
possibility, 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.
19. It is also important to note the deposition of PW-4. Though related to
the victim and PW-2, he deposed that the pandal of Ganesh Puja was
overcrowded and peoples’ feet were touching each other due to which
PW-2 felt that A-1 and A-2 had stepped on PW-2’s feet. This resulted
in a scuffle breaking out between A-1 and A-2 on the one hand and
PW-2 on the other. Though PW-4 was declared hostile after he made
the above statement, he was subjected to cross-examination by the
Public Prosecutor. Notably, it is in his evidence that it was wrong to
suggest that PW-2 was assaulted by A-1 and A-2. 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. A profitable
reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of U.P.
7
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
7
(1996) 10 SCC 360
8
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.
20. The High Court further observed that from the statements of the
appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC, it was clear that they
knew PW-1 belonging to Scheduled Caste. An abrupt finding was
recorded that “it is clear that the offence was committed by the
appellants simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to
scheduled caste.” 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.
21. In our view, 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, which might have
prompted PW-2 to set up a false story of commission of offence on
the victim. Such scuffle could have resulted in PW-2 falling on the
ground and suffering injuries which were ultimately found on his
person by PW-5.
22. 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. What remains is the
9
scratch on the back of her neck. We do not see reason to hold, in
view of the evidence of PW-5 and our above findings, that A-2 ought
to be held guilty of an offence under Section 323, IPC.
23. The conviction and sentence of the appellants being indefensible,
stand set aside. They are set free and discharged from their bail
bonds.
24. The appeal, thus, stands allowed.
………………………………….……J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………………………….…………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 08, 2025.
10