Criminal law — Trial / Appeal — Assault / outraging modesty / offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — Convictions under Sections 354, 323, 294, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act by trial court; appeal dismissed by High Court — Whether prosecution proved offences beyond reasonable doubt — Material contradictions in FIR, depositions and medical evidence; lack of independent / post-occurrence witnesses though many said to be present; hostile witness gave statements favourable to accused which had been ignored by High Court — Medical evidence showed only simple injuries consistent with fall or dragging; no evidence that accused targeted victim because she belonged to Scheduled Caste — Held: Prosecution case suffers from major contradictions and improbabilities; the appellate court should have weighed hostile witness evidence and the inconsistencies; convictions are unsafe and set aside. Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted and discharged.
RATIO / KEY POINTS
-
Standard of proof and appellate scrutiny: Conviction must rest on evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellate courts must test prosecution testimony for internal consistency, corroboration and probability; they must not ignore material inconsistencies or favourable portions of testimony of hostile witnesses.
-
Material contradictions in versions (FIR v. court deposition): The FIR alleged that both accused were present and that the male accused teased and abused the victim knowing her caste. At trial the victim’s version differed as to whether the second accused accompanied the first or was called by phone. Discrepancies as to how PW-2 (the brother) came to know of the incident (he said he was informed; victim said he ran after hearing her scream) were material and undermined credibility.
-
Absence of independent witnesses despite claimed public presence: PW-2 asserted that many locality persons had seen the incident (Ganesh Puja pandal nearby), yet no independent public witness was produced. The non-production of other witnesses when many were allegedly present is a circumstance militating against prosecution story and weakens reliance on oral testimony of interested witnesses.
-
Medical evidence did not support prosecution’s embellished narrative: Medical officer (PW-5) recorded only simple injuries (scratch marks) on the victim and PW-2; these injuries were consistent with falling or dragging and were simple in nature. The prosecution’s claims of nail-marks, bleeding from nose and mouth, and serious assault were not borne out by the medical report; such divergence is fatal to the prosecution case.
-
Hostile witness whose portions favour defence must be considered: PW-4 turned hostile and deposed to a scuffle at the pandal and that defendants may merely have stepped on feet, provoking an altercation. The High Court erred in disregarding this evidence entirely: portions of a hostile witness’s testimony that are consistent with defence or prosecution deserve close scrutiny and may be accepted in whole or part.
-
Lack of proof of motive under SC/ST Act / statutory ingredients not established: There was no testimony in court that the assault/teasing was committed because the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste; the High Court’s conclusion that offence under SC/ST Act was committed for that reason was perverse and unsupported by the record.
-
Appellate conclusion — acquittal justified: Given the cumulative contradictions, omissions, absence of independent corroboration and medical findings consistent with an alternative hypothesis (scuffle / fall), the convictions were unsafe. The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences of both appellants, ordered their release and discharged them from bail.
