Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar vs The State Of Jharkhand

Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6763 of 2023)

HUTU ANSARI @ FUTU ANSAR & ORS. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants were charged under Section

447 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Section 3

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892. The Trial Court

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.04.07 17:48:51 IST 1 “the I.P.C.” Reason: 2 “the SC & ST Act”

Page 1 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 convicted the nine accused arraigned by the

prosecution and sentenced them to undergo simple

imprisonment3 of three months under Section 447

of the I.P.C. and S.I. of two years under Section 3 of

the SC & ST Act with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and

default sentence of S.I. of one month each. In the

appeal filed, the Learned Single Judge of the High

Court converted the sentence to six months S.I.

under SC & ST Act and three-month S.I. under

Section 447 of the I.P.C.; which were to run

concurrently. Accused nos. 1 to 3, 6 and 9 are the

appellants in the above case.

3. We heard Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, learned

counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishnu Sharma,

learned standing counsel for the respondent.

4. The genesis of the case is a land dispute

involving the complainant and her family and

3 “S.I.”

Page 2 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 accused nos. 2, 6 and 9 with respect to land

admeasuring 28 decimals in khata no. 116 plot no.

698, which eventually the accused were forced to

deliver to the complainant and her family vide Ext.-

5 on 25.04.2005; pursuant to the dismissal of an

appeal filed by the accused before the Court of

Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. The alleged

incident occurred on 22.05.2005 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.

5. The prosecution was launched by a complaint

filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure

Code , 19734 numbered as Complaint Case No. 58 of

2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Lohardaga. The complaint was filed by PW-3 who is

4 “the Cr.P.C.”

Page 3 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 the wife of PW-1. It was specifically alleged that the

accused nos. 2 and 9 armed with iron rods along

with others formed into an unlawful assembly and

broke open the lock of the house of the complainant

at about 7 a.m. and committed theft of kitchen

utensils, rice, pulse and bed with bed sheet having a

total value of Rs. 3,000/-. It was also specifically

alleged that the accused persons threatened the

complainant and her husband and abused them

using their caste name, thus insulting and

humiliating them before the villagers. The

chargesheet was under Section 447 of the I.P.C. and

Section 3 of the SC & ST Act.

6. We have looked at the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, who are all related. PW-1

and PW-3 are husband and wife, PW-6 the brother

of PW-1, PW-2 the son of PW-6 and PW-4 the son of

PWs-1 and 3. PW-8 is the Officer who commenced

Page 4 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 the investigation and PW-5 is the Investigating

Officer who laid the chargesheet. PW-7 admitted in

chief-examination that he had no knowledge about

the occurrence.

7. Admittedly all the prosecution witnesses are

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 is not attracted for 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. However, we see 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

Page 5 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 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.

8. PW-1 is 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

Page 6 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 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. PW-2 the

nephew of PW-1 spoke of an abuse being levelled

against him and his family members which abusive

term spoken of, was different from that deposed to

by PW-1. PW-3 the de facto complainant also spoke

of the occurrence being on the disputed land at

about 7 a.m. and spoke of the abuses levelled, in

consonance with PW-2. PW-4 spoke of a disputed

house being in the place of occurrence which he had

got possession from the accused. According to him,

he and his family members were abused as

‘Adivasis’ quite contrary to the allegation levelled by

PW-1 to 3. PW-6, the brother of PW-1 did not speak

about the occurrence and only spoke of one of the

Page 7 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 accused having forcefully constructed a house on

his land.

9. 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 PW-

3. 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. 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. 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. When PW-1

categorically negatived the presence of any other

Page 8 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 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.

10. PW-1 specifically says that the place of

occurrence is at a distance of 1 km from his house.

He also submitted that there is a residential house

constructed in the disputed land by one of the

accused 20 years ago which house was remaining

deserted. With the above scenario in mind, we can

only find that the de-facto complainant, in the FIR,

had talked about the house in which she was

residing while alleging trespass on the accused

persons. However, no such allegation is even spoken

Page 9 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 of in the oral evidence; thus, putting to jeopardy the

offence of house trespass too.

11. We cannot but find that there are 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 is no scope for finding either clause (r) or (s) of

Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act since PW-1 has

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 is 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 25.04.2005.

Page 10 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 As far as the house trespass is concerned, the oral

evidence does not support it. On the above

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.

12. The bail bonds, if any, executed in the above

case shall stand cancelled.

13. The appeal stands allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

……………………..…., J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………..……………, J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN] NEW DELHI;

APRIL 07, 2025.

Page 11 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6763/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-02-2023 in CRA(SJ) No. 360/2010 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi] HUTU ANSARI @ FUTU ANSAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondent(s)

IA No. 88418/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 88415/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 88424/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES Date : 07-04-2025 This matter was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv.

Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv.

Page 12 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran

pronounced the non-reportable Judgment of the

Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu

Dhulia and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The operative portion of the Judgment is

extracted as :-

“11. We cannot but find that there are 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 is no scope for finding either clause (r) or (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act since PW-1 has

Page 13 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023 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 is 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 25.04.2005. As far as the house trespass is concerned, the oral evidence does not support it. On the above 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.

Page 14 of 15

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023

12. The bail bonds, if any, executed in the above case shall stand cancelled.

13. The appeal stands allowed.”

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,

is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

Page 15 of 15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023