HOSTILE INDEPENDENT WITNESSES AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN FILING FIR FATAL TO PROSECUTION UNDER SC/ST ACT

The appellant/complainant filed a written report in October 2018 alleging that on September 15, 2018, at 10:00 PM, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Abhishek and Shweta Agrahari) abused her in public by calling her "witchcraft" and threatening her with a slipper while she was worshiping at her house gate

An FIR was registered on February 22, 2019, under the IPC, the Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam, and the SC/ST Act

The Trial Court (Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Korea) acquitted the respondents on October 26, 2021, after independent witnesses PW-4 and PW-7 turned hostile and the testimony of the complainant’s niece (PW-5) was deemed unreliable

The appellant challenged this acquittal before the High Court

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the testimonies of the complainant (PW-3) and her niece (PW-5)

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the hostility of independent witnesses justified the acquittal

The Court applied Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the right of a victim to appeal against acquittal

Substantively, the case involved Sections 294 (obscene acts/songs) and 506 Part-II (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, read with Section 34

It further involved Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding intentional insult or intimidation in public view

Additionally, the court considered the evidentiary value of "interested witnesses" versus "independent witnesses" and the legal impact of unexplained delays in reporting an incident

The High Court found several infirmities in the prosecution's case. First, the independent eye-witnesses cited in the original report (PW-4 and PW-7) did not support the prosecution's story and claimed no knowledge of the incident

Second, the Court observed material contradictions and exaggerations in the complainant's (PW-3) testimony; she alleged the use of filthy language regarding her mother, which was absent from her initial written report

Third, while the complainant claimed in court that her niece (PW-5) and mother witnessed the event, their names were not mentioned as witnesses in the original report (Ex. P-8), rendering PW-5's testimony unreliable

Finally, the Court noted a significant, unexplained delay of 18–19 days in lodging the report for an incident that occurred on September 15, 2018, which cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit