Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000890-000891 – 2017 |
| Diary Number | 2803/2017 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on handling hostile witnesses |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction can rest on FIR and stain recovery when primary witnesses are hostile |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that testimony of a witness declared hostile must be corroborated; conviction cannot rest on hostile evidence alone.
- Clarifies that FIR statements are not substantive evidence and cannot substitute for oral or documentary proof at trial.
- Emphasises that panchnama recoveries where panch witnesses did not verify contents are inadmissible for proving recovery.
- Highlights the importance of medical evidence: absence of signs of intercourse or injury negates rape allegations.
- Underlines the necessity to examine independent ocular witnesses cited in charge-sheet to avoid gaps in prosecution case.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Hostile Witnesses: Court applied Bhawani and Paramjeet Singh to hold that once main witnesses (victim and husband) turn hostile, their testimony must be treated with caution and requires corroboration.
- FIR as Evidence: Observed that allegations in FIR cannot form the sole basis for conviction unless proved through trial‐stage evidence.
- Panchnama Reliability: Panch witnesses (PW-3, PW-4) admitted signing pre-prepared panchanamas without knowing contents—court rejected stain recovery reliance.
- Medical Examination: PW-6 (doctor of accused) and PW-7 (doctor of victim) both found no conclusive signs of intercourse; abrasions on neck insufficient to prove rape.
- Independent Witnesses Not Examined: Prosecution failed to call three clinic witnesses named in charge-sheet, leaving critical eyewitness testimony untested.
- Aggregate Assessment: In absence of reliable ocular, medical, and forensic proof, conviction under Section 376(2)(d) IPC could not stand and was quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused):
- Victim (PW-1) and husband (PW-2) turned hostile; no direct evidence.
- FIR and investigating officer’s statement cannot substitute viva voce proof.
- Panch witnesses unaware of contents; panchnama unreliable.
- Medical evidence does not support rape; no injury or semen signs.
- Independent clinic witnesses not examined despite being cited.
Respondent (State):
- Serious rape allegations; initial victim’s account and medical history recorded by PW-7.
- Semen stains on victim’s petticoat and accused’s garments matched group B (accused’s blood group).
- High Court rightly relied on FSL report and panchnama recoveries.
- Victim-husband compromise irrelevant to substantive proof.
Factual Background
The victim attended the appellant-doctor’s clinic on 08.05.2001 for stomach pain. During screening and an alleged mock “operation,” she claimed he forcibly committed intercourse, leaving neck abrasions. An FIR under Section 376(2)(d) IPC was filed the same day, leading to investigation, panchnama of clothes with semen-like stains, FSL analysis, and a charge-sheet. The Sessions Court convicted the doctor for rape, sentencing him to six years’ rigorous imprisonment; the Gujarat High Court upheld guilt and enhanced sentence to ten years. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined hostile witness testimony, panchnama and medical evidence and quashed the conviction.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376(2)(d) IPC: Prescribes enhanced punishment for rape where it results in grievous injury or uses weapons—minimum sentence mandated.
- Section 313 CrPC: Governs recording of accused’s statement; court noted it cannot fill gaps left by prosecution.
- FIR Rule: Confirmed that FIR entries are not substantive evidence; reliance on FIR must be tested by trial evidence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms established approach to hostile witnesses and FIR evidentiary limits.