The Hon’ble Supreme Court Acquits Accused in SC/ST Act Case: Key Findings in Dadu @ Ankush v. State of MP (2025 INSC 1395); Hostile testimony is not to be thrown out; parts supporting defence/prosecution can still be relied upon

-

 

Case Summary

Citation: 2025 INSC 1395
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: 08 December 2025

📝 Background of the Case

Two appellants (A-1: Dadu @ Ankush; A-2: Ankit) were convicted by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC for assault and outraging modesty of a Class XI girl.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction.

The appellants approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition.

⚖️ Key Allegations by the Prosecutrix

  • She was home alone at night when A-1 and A-2 came.
  • A-2 allegedly pulled her dupatta and scratched her neck.
  • When her brother (PW-2) arrived, both accused allegedly beat him.
  • Allegation that A-2 knew she was a Scheduled Caste girl and acted with caste-based intention.

👩‍⚖️ Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court carefully analysed the written complaint, oral testimony, medical evidence, and contradictions.

1. Major Contradictions in Testimony

  • FIR said A-2 accompanied A-1; in court she said A-1 called A-2 later.
  • Victim did not say in court that the accused assaulted her because she was SC—contrary to High Court’s conclusion.
  • PW-2 claimed he heard about a fight from someone but did not say he heard her screams.

2. Medical Evidence Did Not Match Prosecution Story

  • Injuries on both the victim and PW-2 were simple and consistent with falling or being dragged, as admitted by Medical Officer (PW-5).
  • No injury on nose/mouth of PW-2 despite his claim of bleeding.
  • No nail marks on victim’s back though both PW-1 & PW-2 claimed so.

3. Missing Independent Witnesses

  • PW-2 said “many people from locality saw the incident.”
  • No independent or post-occurrence witness was examined.
  • Court found this highly suspicious.

4. Hostile Witness Supporting Defence (PW-4)

  • PW-4 suggested the entire issue arose from an overcrowded Ganesh Puja pandal where the accused may have stepped on PW-2’s feet, leading to a scuffle.
  • Court held that even hostile testimony cannot be discarded entirely; the High Court wrongly ignored this.

5. SC/ST Act Charges Not Supported

  • No evidence that the accused targeted the victim because of her caste.
  • High Court’s finding was called “perverse”.

🔚 Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of both appellants.

Reasons for Acquittal:

  • Prosecution version found contradictory, unreliable, and improbable.
  • Injuries did not support the prosecution narrative.
  • Hostile witness’s testimony supported defence version of a scuffle.
  • No evidence of caste-based intent under SC/ST Act.
  • No convincing proof of outraging modesty or assault.

Outcome:

  • Conviction and sentence quashed.
  • Appellants acquitted and discharged from bail bonds.

📌 Key Takeaways for Lawyers & Students

  • Hostile testimony is not to be thrown out; parts supporting defence/prosecution can still be relied upon.
  • Inconsistencies between FIR, statements, and medical evidence can be fatal to prosecution.
  • Caste-based offences require solid proof of intent, not just that the victim belongs to SC/ST community.
  • Non-examination of independent witnesses when available weakens the prosecution case significantly.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points:

-
Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points: Chapter-wise Important Sections of BNS, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Section 1 – Short title, extent, and commencement Section 2 – Definitions (similar to IPC, but some terms updated) Section 3 – Punishment of offenses committed beyond India but by Indian citizens General Exceptions (Defense to Criminal Liability) Section 20 – Act done by a child below 7 years is not an offense Section 21 – Act done by a child above 7 but below 12, considering maturity Section 24 – Right of private defense (self-defense provisions) Section 25 – Right of private defense extending to causing death in certain cases Offenses Against the State Section 111 – Waging war against the Government of India Section 113 – Sedition (modified from IPC; now called "acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India") Offenses Affecting Public Tranquility ...
Read more

MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

-
Here is a set of 20 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) based on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, focusing on both conceptual understanding and practical application. Each question is followed by an explanation. MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Which of the following is a fundamental principle introduced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? a) Rehabilitation-focused punishment b) Community service as an alternative to imprisonment c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism d) Legalization of certain offenses under previous laws Answer: c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism Explanation: The BNS 2023 enhances penalties for offenses like terrorism, mob lynching, and organized crime to strengthen national security. Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which term replaces the word ‘offense’ used in IPC, 1860? a) Crime b) Illegality c) Apradh d) Wrongdoing Answer: c) Apradh Explanation: The term...
Read more

The Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (Striking out or adding parties at any stage of a proceeding) necessary and Proper Party Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908

-
Image
Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (necessary and Proper Party ) order 1 rule 10 of the CPC, 1908  Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre , Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal , and Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. , focusing on impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10(2), CPC in specific performance suits . Comparative Case Analysis: Impleadment of Parties in Specific Performance Suits Case Name Key Issue Held Position on Impleadment Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre (2010) 7 SCC 417 Can a third party with prospective interest in the suit property be impleaded? ❌ No impleadment A party with only expectation of acquiring interest (not an existing right) is not a proper or necessary party . The plaintiff's choice of whom to sue is respected unless the twin test is met. Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733 Can a person claiming adverse title to both plaintiff and defendant be impleaded? ...
Read more