9 December 2025 Legal Updates

TESTIMONY CANNOT BE REJECTED SOLELY BECAUSE WITNESS IS DECLARED HOSTILE, CONSISTENT PORTIONS CAN BE RELIED UPON: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title: 

• Dadu @ Ankush & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision: 

• December 8, 2025

(d) Bench: 

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih

Facts

The victim, a Class 11 student belonging to Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint alleging that two accused persons—Dadu @ Ankush (A-1) and Ankit Kevte (A-2)—came to her house when she was alone. According to her complaint, A-2 pulled her dupatta, caught her neck with bad intention, and scratched her neck. When her brother Pawan (PW-2) came to rescue her, both accused allegedly assaulted and abused him. The FIR was registered under Sections 354, 294, 323, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Trial Court Decision

The Special Court convicted A-1 under Section 323 IPC (3 months RI + fine). A-2 was convicted under Sections 354, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act, with sentences totalling one year RI for each of the more serious offences, to run concurrently.

High Court Decision

The High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both accused, identifying several critical discrepancies:

1. Inconsistent versions:

• The FIR stated A-2 accompanied A-1, but in court testimony, the victim claimed A-1 called A-2 on phone.

2. Contradictory injury evidence:

• The victim claimed her brother had bleeding injuries on head and chest
• Prosecution Witness-2 claimed injuries on nose and mouth with bleeding
• Medical evidence (Prosecution Witness-5) showed only scratch marks on chest and eyebrow—no nose/mouth injuries

3. Missing eyewitness testimony:

• Prosecution Witness -2 stated many locality people witnessed the incident, yet none were examined as witnesses.

4. Medical evidence:

• The doctor testified that the injuries could have resulted from falling or being dragged on the ground, not necessarily from assault.

5. Hostile witness ignored:

• The High Court improperly rejected testimony of Prosecution Witness-4 (declared hostile) who stated the incident arose from a scuffle at the Ganesh Puja pandal over accidentally stepping on feet. The Supreme Court cited State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996) 10 SCC 360, holding that hostile witness testimony cannot be totally rejected and must be scrutinized for truthful portions.

6. Perverse finding on caste motive:

• The High Court concluded the offence was committed because the victim belonged to SC, but neither the victim nor Prosecution Witness-2 testified to this in court.

Key Legal Principles

• Hostile Witness Evidence: Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be wholly rejected; portions consistent with prosecution or defense may be accepted after closer scrutiny.
• Burden of Proof: Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; material contradictions and missing corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
• Appreciation of Evidence: Courts must critically examine inconsistencies between FIR, witness testimony, and medical evidence.

Outcome

Both appellants were acquitted, conviction and sentence set aside, and they were discharged from bail bonds.