1. Land dispute leading to charges of criminal trespass under Section 447, IPC, and caste-based atrocities under Section 3, SC & ST Act. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 601
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1832 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6763 of 2023)
Decided On : 07-04-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
House trespass and use of derogatory terms referring to caste – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained there are gross inconsistencies insofar as complaint and oral evidence led by way of deposition before Court.
House trespass and use of derogatory terms referring to caste – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained there are gross inconsistencies insofar as complaint and oral evidence led by way of deposition before Court.
Subject
Criminal Law - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 447 read with Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – House trespass and use of derogatory terms referring to caste – Conviction and sentence – All prosecution witnesses are related and specific case of accused was that due to enmity, on account of land dispute, accused were framed under SC & ST Act alleging house trespass – There is nothing to indicate that there was anybody present in vicinity of alleged scene of occurrence, other than family members of complainant – Husband of de-facto complainant who did not refer to a caste name and only spoke of a derogatory term being used against them – There are gross inconsistencies insofar as complaint and oral evidence led by way of deposition before Court – Place of occurrence was stated to be house, in complaint, while all witnesses spoke of alleged incident having occurred in field, which was disputed land – There was no member of public present at the time incident occurred – There is nothing to indicate that complainant and her family were forcefully evicted from disputed land or that accused occupied it illegally – Absolutely no reason to sustain conviction as entered into by Magistrate’s Court confirmed by High Court – Order of Magistrate as confirmed by High Court set aside and appellants acquitted. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were charged under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Trial Court convicted nine accused arraigned by prosecution and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of three months under Section 447 of the I.P.C. and S.I. of two years under Section 3 of SC & ST Act with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence of S.I. of one month each. In appeal filed, Single Judge of High Court converted sentence to six months S.I. under SC & ST Act and three-month S.I. under Section 447 of I.P.C.; which were to run concurrently.
Findings of Court:
Insofar as allegation under clause (f) of Section 3(1) there is nothing to indicate that complainant and her family were forcefully evicted from disputed land or that accused occupied it illegally after delivery was effected on 25.04.2005. As far as house trespass is concerned, oral evidence does not support it.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR, Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv., Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR, Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv., Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Accused contended they were framed due to land dispute enmity and that alleged insults did not occur in a public place. (Para 7 )
3. Evidence showed gross inconsistencies regarding the place of occurrence and a lack of independent witnesses to establish that insults were made in public view. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Conviction under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act requires proof that insults or abuses occurred in a place within public view. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 )
5. Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted. (Para 11 , 13 )
6. What is the requirement for an offence to be constituted under clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act?
The offence requires that the intentional insult, intimidation, or abuse by caste name must occur in a place within public view. If only family members are present and no members of the public are in the vicinity, the requirement of public view is not satisfied. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 )
7. How do gross inconsistencies between a complaint and oral evidence affect a conviction for house trespass?
When the complaint alleges house trespass, such as breaking a lock, but oral evidence suggests the incident occurred in an open field, such inconsistencies jeopardize the prosecution's case and may lead to acquittal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
8. What must be proven to sustain a conviction under Section 3(1)(f) of the SC & ST Act?
There must be evidence of wrongful occupation or cultivation of land owned by or in the possession of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, such as forceful eviction from the land. (Para 7 , 11 )
JUDGMENT :
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants were charged under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1[“the I.P.C.”] and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,2[“the SC & ST Act”]. The Trial Court convicted the nine accused arraigned by the prosecution and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment,3[“S.I.”] 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 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, 1973,4[“the Cr.P.C.”] numbered as Complaint Case No. 58 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. The complaint was filed by PW-3 who is 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 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 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
