Caste Member’s Bald Testimony Without Corroboration or Public View Elements Is Insufficient for SC/ST Act Conviction

The appellants challenged their conviction for offenses under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(v) and 3(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The complainant (P.W.3), a member of the Scheduled Caste community, alleged that the appellants encroached on his government-settled land, demolished boundary ridges, used caste-based slurs in a filthy manner, and physically assaulted him.

The incident purportedly occurred on June 28, 2009.

Initially three appellants were involved, but the case against Md. Kyam abated following his death.

The trial court convicted the remaining two appellants on February 21, 2019.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of Section 3(v) and 3(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, specifically regarding public view and dispossession.

2. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant (P.W.3) was sufficient to sustain a conviction in light of an admitted land dispute.

3. Whether the caste identity of the victim was legally established beyond his oral statement.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically Section 3(1)(v) (wrongful dispossession/interference with land) and Section 3(1)(x) (intentional insult or intimidation in any place within public view).

Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code regarding voluntarily causing hurt and intentional insult to provoke breach of peace.

Principles of criminal jurisprudence requiring proof of caste status and independent corroboration in the presence of an underlying civil/land dispute.

The court noted that the Investigating Officer (P.W.5) admitted the existence of a land dispute and a lack of independent witnesses.

While the complainant (P.W.3) alleged abuse and assault, the court observed that he was the sole eyewitness and his testimony lacked corroboration.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 were deemed hearsay and interested witnesses (brothers of the complainant).

Regarding the SC/ST Act charges, the court found Section 3(v) inapplicable as there was no evidence of dispossession, merely a boundary dispute between neighboring landholders.

There was no documentary evidence to prove the victim’s caste status other than a bald oral statement, which the court found contrary to law.

The court held that since the incident did not occur within "public view" and was essentially civil in nature, the criminal convictions could not stand.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2019; the appellants were discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.