"Her Version In Chief Examination Fully Incriminates Accused": SC Upholds Gang Rape Conviction Even Though Prosecutrix Turned Hostile During Cross Examination
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of man in a gang rape case on the ground that there was sufficient corroboration to the version given by the victim in her examination-in-chief.
The accused had filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which his conviction was upheld.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “In the present case also, 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.”
AOR Rahul Shyam Bhandari appeared for the appellant/accused while Senior Additional Advocate General V. Krishnamurthy appeared for the respondent/State.
Factual Background -
The Trial Court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998. In 2006, the police station had received an information from the victim that she was gang raped. Hence, an FIR was registered and then the Inspector of Police visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar and sketch. The statement of witnesses was recorded and the accused persons were arrested. The medical officer examined the victim and her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.
The victim was working in a shoe company and when she was aged 22 years and returning to her house after completing her work, the accused who was the Manager/Owner of the said company came to her and told her that he wanted to talk to her about certain matter and so he took her to a place near the Railway Bridge where already the other four persons were standing. All of them forcibly dragged her to a secluded place and threatened to throw her on the railway track if she shouted. Thereafter, they stripped her and committed gang rape on her. As the Trial Court convicted the appellant, he approached the High Court but it dismissed his appeal and hence, he was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “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.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Cause Title- Selvamani v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 393)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Advocates G. Priytadarshini, Satyam Pathak, and Ratneshwar Chakma.
Respondent: Sr. AAG V. Krishnamurthy, AOR D. Kumanan, Advocates Deepa. S, Sheikh F. Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, and Richa Vishwakarma.
