The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of two young men from Madhya Pradesh, observing that the prosecution’s story simply “did not inspire confidence” after deeper scrutiny. The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling with a firm tone, noting several inconsistencies in the witness accounts that had earlier led to the men’s conviction under assault and atrocity charges.
Read Hindi
Background
The case dates back to 4 October 2015, when a Class 11 girl from Sawargaon accused two neighbours - Dadu @ Ankush (A-1) and Ankit (A-2) - of pulling her dupatta, scratching her neck, and beating her younger brother when he intervened. She also alleged that A-2 knowingly targeted her because she belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
The Special Court convicted the two men, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court later upheld those findings in January 2024. The appeal before the Supreme Court was the last step for the two, who had consistently maintained that the allegations were exaggerated and rooted in a scuffle elsewhere.
Court’s Observations
The hearing moved at a steady pace, with the judges repeatedly pointing the lawyers back to the record — especially the contradictions between the FIR, the medical report, and the depositions.
One of the most striking issues was the uncertain timeline and presence of A-2. The FIR said he arrived with A-1, while the victim later told the court that A-1 had called A-2 on the phone. “Such discrepancies might appear small, but they stack up,” Justice Datta remarked at one point.
More troubling to the bench was the statement of the victim’s brother (PW-2), who claimed that “many people from the locality had seen the incident.” Yet not a single local resident was produced as a witness. PW-2 also said he rushed home after someone informed him of a fight, while his sister had testified that she screamed loudly and that those screams brought him running.
“The bench observed, ‘If the area was crowded due to Ganesh Utsav, it is improbable that only the brother heard the scream and no one else reacted.’”
The medical report further weakened the prosecution’s case. The scratch injuries on both siblings were minor, and the doctor clarified that such injuries could also occur from falling or being dragged on the ground. Yet the prosecution had introduced no physical evidence — not even the wooden stick PW-2 claimed he was beaten with.
A relative witness (PW-4) initially stated that the alleged assault had actually been a scuffle during the crowded Ganesh pandal, triggered when people stepped on each other's feet. The prosecution declared him hostile, but the Supreme Court said his testimony could not simply be brushed aside. “Hostile does not mean irrelevant,” a judge remarked while referring to earlier precedents.
The Court also found no evidence whatsoever to support the High Court’s claim that the accused acted because the victim was from a Scheduled Caste. There was no such statement by the victim or her brother during trial. Calling the High Court’s finding “perverse,” the bench said assumptions cannot replace concrete testimony.
After walking through each inconsistency, the Supreme Court delivered its final word: the convictions could not stand. Justice Datta read out the operative part calmly, almost gently:
“The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. They are set free and discharged from their bail bonds.”
Case Title: Dadu @ Ankush & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ………….. of 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10759/2024)
