On Wednesday (May 08), the Supreme Court ruled that the entirety of a prosecution witness’s evidence cannot be dismissed solely because the prosecution treated them as hostile and cross-examined them. The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, upheld the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court, refusing to overturn the accused’s conviction solely based on the lack of support from the prosecution witness during cross-examination.
In the Judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai, it was observed that a significant gap between the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses suggested that they were influenced by the accused, leading them to retract their earlier statements that had strongly incriminated the accused. Citing the precedent set in the case of C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court clarified that despite the witnesses’ change in stance, their testimony cannot be completely disregarded from the record. Instead, the court should assess their statements and accept those parts that appear credible upon careful scrutiny.
Upon careful examination of the testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the medical evidence, the court determined that there was adequate corroboration supporting the victim’s account as presented during her initial examination.
The court affirmed the accused’s conviction, relying on the prosecutrix/victim’s testimony during her examination-in-chief, which was sufficiently corroborated by her statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the expert evidence presented.
