Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently acquitted five men in a case related to house trespass and use of abusive words under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, after noting that the prosecution witness categorically stated there was no member of public present at the time of incident in 2005.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran found that there were 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 was no scope for finding either clause (r) or (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act since PW-1 had 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 was 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 April 25, 2005, the bench noted.

As far as the house trespass was concerned, the oral evidence did not support it, the court said. 

"On this 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," the bench said.    

The appellants, Hutu Ansari alias Futu Ansar and others were charged under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  

The trial court convicted the nine accused arraigned by the prosecution and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of three months under Section 447 of the IPC and simple imprisonment of two years under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act with a fine of Rs 3,000 and default sentence of simple imprisonment of one month each. 

In the appeal filed, the single judge bench of the high court converted the sentence to six months simple imprisonment under SC & ST Act and three-month simple imprisonment under Section 447 of the IPC; which were to run concurrently. Five accused filed a plea before the apex court.

The alleged incident occurred on May 22, 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. 

The prosecution was launched by a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.         

After going through the evidence, the apex court noted admittedly all the prosecution witnesses were 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 was not attracted for the 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, the bench said.

However, the court noted 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 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," the bench added.

The court noted the prosecution witness no. 1 was 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 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. 

"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 PW3. 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," the bench said. 

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, the court noted.

"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," the bench said.  

When PW-1 categorically negatived the presence of any other 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, the court pointed out.

Case Title: Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors Vs The State of Jharkhand