Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 376(2)(d) — Evidence — Hostile witnesses — FIR as substantive evidence — Medical and forensic corroboration — Victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) turning hostile and not supporting prosecution — Conviction recorded by Trial Court and sentence enhanced by High Court relying upon FIR, testimony of Investigating Officer, recovery panchnamas and FSL report — Held, FIR and statements recorded during investigation cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless proved during trial — Panch witnesses of recovery turning hostile and stating signatures obtained at instance of police — Medical evidence not supporting recent physical intercourse — Independent witnesses present at place of occurrence not examined — Presumption by High Court that witnesses were “won over” impermissible in absence of prosecution case to that effect — Conviction unsustainable — Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside — Accused acquitted.
VERBATIM CORE FINDINGS (Ratio Extracted from Judgment)
“When the main witness of the prosecution, i.e. the victim herself, has not supported the case of the prosecution, it is not open for the Court to presume that she did not support the case of the prosecution because the appellant-accused has won over the said witness.”
“Merely because the victim has levelled allegations against the appellant-accused in the FIR and the investigating officer has deposed before the Court with regard to the contents of the said FIR, it cannot be presumed that the allegations levelled in the FIR are true and correct unless the same is proved during the course of trial by leading cogent evidence.”
“From the deposition given by panch witnesses of recovery… it transpires that their signatures were obtained on the written paper at the instance of the police… Thus, the High Court has committed an error while placing reliance upon the stains of semen found on the clothes.”
“The medical evidence also does not support the version of the prosecution.”
STRUCTURED SUMMARY (Without Paraphrasing Court Language)
A. Prosecution Case
Allegation of rape by a doctor during medical examination.
FIR lodged by victim narrating forcible intercourse.
Trial Court convicted accused under Section 376(2)(d) IPC and sentenced him to six years.
High Court dismissed accused’s appeal and enhanced sentence to ten years.
B. Evidence During Trial
Victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) did not support prosecution and were declared hostile.
Panch witnesses (PW-3 & PW-4) stated that signatures were obtained on written papers at police instance.
Doctor examining accused could not obtain semen sample and gave no definite opinion.
Doctor examining victim found only abrasions on neck; no signs of recent intercourse.
Independent witnesses present in clinic were not examined.
C. Error Found by Supreme Court
Reliance on FIR and Investigating Officer’s testimony despite failure of substantive evidence.
Improper reliance on hostile recovery panchnamas and FSL report.
Medical evidence not corroborating prosecution version.
High Court impermissibly presumed witnesses were “won over”.
Conversion of direct evidence case into circumstantial evidence held unsustainable.
D. Final Holding
Conviction recorded by Trial Court and confirmed/enhanced by High Court set aside.
Accused acquitted.
Bail bonds discharged.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
Reaffirms that FIR is not substantive evidence.
Reiterates caution in relying on hostile witness testimony without corroboration.
Holds that presumption of witnesses being “won over” cannot substitute proof.
Emphasizes necessity of medical and forensic corroboration in sexual offence trials.
No comments:
Post a Comment