When Evidence is Weak and Enmity is Admitted, Conviction Cannot Stand: Supreme Court Acquits Two Men in Assault Case Under Probation Act

"When the evidence tendered is a weak piece of evidence… and there being no proof with regard to ownership or possession of the land… the trial court had committed an error in accepting the self-serving testimony of the complainant as gospel truth" — Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India allowing the appeal of two accused persons who had been previously convicted for assault and trespass under Sections 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The apex court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court of Rajasthan, citing weak evidence, prior enmity, and lack of independent corroboration.

The judgment is a reaffirmation of the principle that criminal convictions must rest on cogent and credible evidence, particularly when land ownership is disputed and enmity between parties is admitted.

Assault Allegation Over Agricultural Land with No Title Proof

The case originated from FIR No. 195/2019, filed by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleging that the appellants unlawfully entered his agricultural field, attempted to dispossess him, assaulted him and his wife, and hurled caste-based abuses.

However, during investigation, Final Report No. 90/2019 concluded that neither party had ownership documents for the land in question, and the land belonged to the State. The Investigating Officer also found the allegations to be false and filed a closure report.

Despite this, the Magistrate took cognizance on a protest petition filed by the complainant, and after a full trial, convicted the appellants under IPC Sections 447 and 323, though acquitting them under Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They were extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The High Court later affirmed this conviction in SB Criminal Appeal No.1160/2024, maintaining the trial court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court examined the following legal and factual issues:

• Was the conviction sustainable based solely on testimony of interested witnesses?

• Whether prior enmity rendered the complaint suspect?

• Did the courts err in ignoring the closure report and lack of land ownership?

• Whether the complainant’s narrative could be accepted as truthful despite contradictions and no independent corroboration?

The Court found that the complainant (PW-3) admitted in his cross-examination dated 07.06.2023 that there was prior enmity with the accused, and that previous proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. had been initiated by the Taluka Magistrate at the instance of the appellants. This strongly suggested that the FIR might have been filed as a counterblast.

Further, the Court emphasized:

“Except the self-serving testimony and the interested witness (PW-2), namely, the brother of the complainant, no other independent witnesses were examined.”

It was also noted that the land in question belonged to the State, and no party had rightful possession. Thus, the allegation of trespass itself fell flat.

The Supreme Court strongly criticized both lower courts for ignoring these crucial aspects:

“The appellate court also seems to have continued the error committed by the trial court…”

Conviction Set Aside, Appellants Acquitted

After detailed analysis, the Court concluded:

“When the evidence that has been tendered is a weak piece of evidence... and there being no proof with regard to the ownership or possession of the land by the complainant... the trial court had committed an error in accepting the self-serving testimony...”

The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, discharging their bail bonds:

“The judgment of the trial court and consequential sentence imposed as affirmed by the High Court... stands set aside.”

This decision from the Supreme Court reinforces the vital criminal law principle that mere allegations or biased testimony without supporting independent evidence cannot sustain a conviction, especially in disputes colored by personal hostility. The Court’s emphasis on the importance of independent verification in land-related assault cases is a clear message to trial courts not to ignore material inconsistencies, investigative findings, and background enmity.

Date of Decision: September 9, 2025