The Bombay High Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal in this SC/ST Atrocity Act case underscores a critical doctrinal boundary: even in cases involving grave social crimes, the quality and consistency of evidence remain paramount. The judgment reaffirms that judicial protection for marginalized communities cannot override the foundational requirement of reliable proof.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainant, a woman from a Scheduled Caste, alleged that on 1 May 2014, her neighbours - five members of the Shaikh family - assaulted her during a dispute over business rivalry in their flour mill operations. She claimed that accused Hasan kicked her abdomen, accused Saddam used a belt to strangle her, and accused Mehtab outrageously touched her breast while hurling caste-based abuses. She also alleged theft of a two-tola necklace. The incident was reported the next day, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 354, 392, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Procedural History
- 2014: FIR registered on 2 May 2014 after incident on 1 May
- Trial Court: All five accused acquitted on grounds of unreliable evidence
- 2019: State sought leave to appeal the acquittal
- 2026: Bombay High Court refused leave to appeal
Relief Sought
The State sought leave to file an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in rejecting the victim’s testimony, which it claimed was credible and unshaken, and that the acquittal ignored the special protections under the SC/ST Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the sole testimony of a victim in a case under Section 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act can sustain a conviction when it is materially inconsistent with other prosecution evidence and unsupported by any independent witness.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The State argued that the victim’s testimony was credible, detailed, and remained unshaken in cross-examination. It relied on the principle that in crimes involving sexual assault or caste-based violence, the testimony of the victim, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction even without corroboration, citing State of Maharashtra v. Suresh and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh. It contended that the trial court erred in discounting the victim’s account merely because independent witnesses did not support her, ignoring the social stigma and fear that often deter third-party testimony in such cases.
For the Respondent/State
The defence argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions. The victim and her husband, PW3, gave conflicting accounts regarding the number of accused involved, the sequence of events, and the nature of the assault. Crucially, the only eyewitness mentioned by both - the woman who came to grind chillies - was not examined. All other independent witnesses, including relatives and village officials, either denied the assault or testified only to a general quarrel. The defence maintained that the inconsistencies rendered the testimony unreliable and that the acquittal was legally sound.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, emphasizing that while the SC/ST Act mandates robust protection, it does not dispense with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the victim’s testimony contained material discrepancies: she claimed the assault occurred between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., while her husband placed it at 8:30 p.m. The roles attributed to each accused varied significantly between their accounts. The Court further observed that the prosecution failed to examine the most critical eyewitness - the woman who was present at the mill during the alleged incident.
"Her testimony does not inspire confidence as there are variances and rather it is exaggerated version."
The Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Krishna and State of Rajasthan v. Laxmi, where convictions were upheld on sole victim testimony, by highlighting that in those cases, the testimony was internally consistent and corroborated by medical or circumstantial evidence. Here, no such corroboration existed. The Court also noted that the delay in reporting - 24 hours - without a plausible explanation, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The absence of support from any independent witness, despite multiple being available and examined, was fatal to the prosecution’s narrative.
The Verdict
The State’s application for leave to appeal was rejected. The Court held that the sole testimony of a victim, even in cases under the SC/ST Act, cannot form the basis of conviction when it is inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by the absence of support from all independent witnesses. The acquittal was upheld as legally justified.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Testimony Alone Is Not Conclusive
- Practitioners must now rigorously assess whether the victim’s account is internally consistent and supported by medical, documentary, or circumstantial evidence
- In SC/ST Act cases, reliance on victim testimony without corroboration is risky unless the testimony is unimpeachable and free of contradictions
- Prosecutors should prioritize locating and examining all potential eyewitnesses, especially those mentioned in the complaint
Inconsistencies Between Spousal Testimonies Are Fatal
- When the victim and her spouse provide conflicting versions of the same event, courts will treat both accounts with extreme caution
- Prosecutors must ensure that testimonies of close relatives are aligned before filing charges
- Defence counsel can exploit such inconsistencies to challenge credibility under Section 164 CrPC and Section 145 Evidence Act
Failure to Examine Key Witnesses Undermines Prosecution
- The non-examination of a witness mentioned in the FIR or testimony - especially one central to the incident - creates a serious gap in the prosecution’s case
- Courts may infer adverse inference under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act if such a witness is available but not called
- Prosecutors must document reasons for non-examination and avoid relying on speculative narratives
