Summary
Witnesses’ retraction during cross-examination months after their examination-in-chief did not erase dependable testimony. The survivor’s account of gang rape, supported by the prompt FIR, her judicial statement and medical evidence, remained sufficient despite her and relatives’ later reversal. The Court deprecated prolonged gaps permitting witnesses to be won over and upheld the concurrent conviction findings. The appeal by accused No.2 was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether later hostile testimony required rejection of incriminating examination-in-chief.
- Whether the remaining evidence sufficiently supported the appellant’s conviction.
Provisions considered
- Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant’s convictions for the charged gang rape and intimidation were left undisturbed after scrutiny of the survivor’s testimony and corroboration. (¶¶ 1, 2.4, 2.5, 13, 15, 16)
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The survivor’s recorded judicial statement was considered alongside the FIR and medical testimony when evaluating the dependability of her trial account. (¶¶ 6, 13)
Held
- Hostility does not expunge a witness’s entire evidence. After careful scrutiny, admissible and dependable portions may be relied on by either side; contradictions require assessment of their effect on the core account rather than automatic rejection of all testimony. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The survivor and her mother and aunt supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief but resiled in cross-examination about three and a half months later. The Court considered the gap an opportunity for their being won over, and tested the original testimony against the prompt complaint, the judicial statement and medical evidence. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 13)
- That scrutiny disclosed sufficient corroboration of the survivor’s original account, including medical evidence of injuries supporting force. The relied-on decision in Rai Sandeep was distinguished on its facts, rather than treated as requiring rejection of the evidence here. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14)
- The Court reiterated the importance of completing cross-examination promptly rather than permitting long, unjustified adjournments, drawing on authorities emphasising fairness to the accused, prosecution, victim and society. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- No interference was warranted with the concurrent evidence-based findings. Accused No.2’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the convictions and concurrent sentences, including ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for gang rape, undisturbed. (¶¶ 2.5, 2.7, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal by accused No.2 dismissed; concurrent convictions and sentences upheld. Pending applications disposed of.