RAJVEER
Conviction Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Prosecution Witness Turned Hostile
RAJVEER SINGH 13 Aug 2024

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 08) held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.

Affirming the decision of the High Court and Trial Court, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta declined to aside the conviction of the accused merely because the prosecution witness didn't support the prosecution's case in their cross-examination.

Noting that there was a considerable gap between the prosecution witnesses examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the Judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai indicated that the witnesses were won over by the accused and they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination-in-chief which fully incriminates the accused.

By placing reliance on the case of C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court stated that the evidence of such prosecution witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a scrutiny thereof.

However, after scrutinizing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and medical evidence, the court noted that there was sufficient corroboration to the version given by the victim in her chief examination.

“when the evidence of the victim as well as prosecution witnesses is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the evidence of the Medical Expert (PW-8), we find that there is sufficient corroboration to the version given by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief.”, the court said.

it appears that, on account of a long gap between the examination-in-chief and cross examination, the witnesses were won over by the accused and they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination-in-chief which fully incriminates the accused. However, when the evidence of the victim as well as her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-3) is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the evidence of the Medical Expert (PW-8), we find that there is sufficient corroboration to the version given by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief.

Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) is concerned, the said case can be distinguished, inasmuch as in the said case except a minor abrasion on the right side of the neck below jaw, there were no other injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix, although it was allegedly a forcible gang rape. As such, the said judgment would not be applicable in the present case.

The court upheld the conviction of the accused based on the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim after her testimony in the examination in chief led to sufficient corroboration with the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and the expert evidence.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: SELVAMANI VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com