Full Judgment Text
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
1
447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
2
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . The Trial Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.07
17:48:51 IST
Reason:
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
3
imprisonment 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
4
Code, 1973 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.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
14.
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
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
1
447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
2
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . The Trial Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.07
17:48:51 IST
Reason:
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
3
imprisonment 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
4
Code, 1973 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.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
14.
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