The Supreme Court has ruled that testimony of a hostile witness cannot be fully rejected and must be carefully scrutinized. The Court set aside the conviction of two accused after finding major inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has acquitted two men accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after holding that even if a witness turns hostile, their testimony cannot be completely ignored.
The Court said that parts of such testimony that support either the prosecution or the defence must still be closely examined.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: “Abuse Inside Home Not Within Public View”
The case reached the Supreme Court after the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal of the two men who were convicted under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the High Court wrongly ignored the evidence of PW-4 only because he had turned hostile. The judges explained that the High Court overlooked settled legal principles.
They said,
“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. 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 defence may be accepted. The mere rejection of the evidence of PW4 in the manner aforesaid is contrary to the law laid down by this Court.”
AOR Rajat Sehgal appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Aditya Vaibhav Singh represented the State.
According to the written complaint filed by the victim, she was alone at home when her brother had gone to attend a religious function. She alleged that the two accused men arrived and asked if anyone was home.
She said she told them her father was in the market, after which the second accused allegedly pulled her chunni and grabbed her neck with bad intentions. She further claimed that when she tried to escape, he scratched her neck.
When her brother rushed back, he was also beaten and abused using filthy language. The police registered an FIR and later filed a charge sheet under Sections 354, 294, 323, and 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
When the Supreme Court examined the evidence, it found several inconsistencies. The judges pointed out that there was confusion on whether the second accused was even present at the victim’s house when the first accused arrived.
They also noticed that although the victim stated she had nail marks on her back from the attack, the medical officer (PW-5) did not mention any such injury.
ALSO READ: SC/ST Act Can’t Stop Bank from Mortgage Rights: Delhi High Court
The Bench also highlighted contradictions in the brother’s testimony. PW-2 claimed he suffered bleeding injuries on his nose and mouth, but the doctor did not find any such injuries.
The victim, however, stated that PW-2 had been bleeding from his head and chest, which contradicted PW-2’s version.
The Court said that the brother also claimed many people from the neighbourhood witnessed the incident, but the prosecution did not produce even one independent witness.
The judges remarked that this made his version unreliable, commenting that it was strange that nobody from the locality came to help or testified in court.
The Court observed,
“While it is within the realm of 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”.
The Court also examined the testimony of PW-4, who was related to the victim and had been declared hostile. The Bench emphasised that rejecting his statement completely was against established legal principles.
The judges further found that the victim never stated in court that the second accused assaulted her because she belonged to a Scheduled Caste. PW-2 also did not mention this. Calling the High Court’s finding incorrect, the Bench said,
“No such statement was even made by PW-2. The finding returned by the High Court is, thus, perverse”.
The Court also accepted the defence’s version that a scuffle had taken place earlier at a Puja pandal between PW-2 and the accused, which could have led to PW-2 falling and suffering injuries. The Bench noted that this was a more believable explanation, stating,
“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”.
The judges further pointed out that the victim had not blamed the first accused for any specific offensive act, and her version that the second accused pulled her dupatta and beat her brother did not seem trustworthy in light of the medical evidence and contradictions.
The Court concluded,
“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”.
The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of both accused.
The Appellants were represented by AOR Rajat Sehgal, and the Respondent was represented by Advocate Aditya Vaibhav Singh, AOR Sarad Kumar Singhania and Advocate Rashmi Singhania.
Case Title:
Dadu @ Ankush v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1395)
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act
