Conviction Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Prosecution Witness Turned Hostile: Supreme Court

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.

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.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR Ms. G. Priytadarshini,Adv. Mr. Satyam Pathak,Adv. Dr. Ratneshwar Chakma,Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv.

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

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Click here to read/download the judgment