Court Reaffirms Existing Precedents on Hostile Witnesses, FIR Delays and Forensic Evidence, Providing Binding Authority for Criminal Trials in Rape Cases
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
CRA/18/2019 of MINOR JUBIN KUJUR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH CNR CGHC010002412019 |
| Date of Registration | 04-01-2019 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court judgments; reaffirms Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (sexual offences) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) | The High Court held that family‐driven delay in lodging FIR does not per se vitiate prosecution in gang-rape cases, given the social stigma and deliberations involved. It reaffirmed that testimony from a witness declared hostile may still be accepted in part if it is consistent, dependable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. Minor lapses—such as limited TIP participation and delayed dispatch of vaginal slides to the FSL—do not automatically erode the prosecution’s case absent evidence of tampering. The absence of DNA testing is not fatal where semen and spermatozoa are independently detected on samples and corroborate the narrative. Overall, technical shortcomings cannot displace cogent ocular, medical and forensic proof of gang rape under Section 376(d) IPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A 20-year-old maid was gang-raped by nine adults and one juvenile on 05-09-2017 in a jungle near Kaikachar after accompanying a friend. FIR was lodged on 09-09-2017 under Sections 341, 376(d), 307, 34, 120-B IPC. Prosecution examined 22 witnesses, including the victim, eye-witness and medical officers. Vaginal slides and clothing showed semen and spermatozoa; no DNA test was conducted. TIP identified five accused; family deliberation caused a four-day FIR delay. Both Sessions Court and Juvenile Court convicted under Section 376(d), sentencing each to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Appeals were dismissed. |
| Citations | 2024 INSC 393; (2015) 3 SCC 220; (2011) 7 SCC 130; AIR 1956 SC 526 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Criminal Benches of the Supreme Court |
| Distinguishes | Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 |
| Follows | Selvamani v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police 2024 INSC 393; C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a victim’s delay in lodging FIR due to family deliberations over social stigma does not vitiate prosecution.
- Clarifies that hostiles-turned-witnesses may still provide admissible, reliable testimony upon close scrutiny.
- Confirms that limited TIP flaws do not warrant acquittal where identification is otherwise clear and consistent.
- Holds that delayed dispatch of vaginal slides and absence of DNA testing do not automatically collapse forensic evidence if semen and spermatozoa are established.
- Emphasises cumulative weight of FIR, Section 164 CrPC statements, medical and forensic reports to uphold conviction in gang-rape cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Delay in FIR
- Family reputation concerns justify a four-day lapse between incident and FIR.
- Supreme Court precedent permits such delay in sexual‐offence cases.
-
Hostile Witnesses
- Victim and eye-witness partly hostile, but their earlier consistent FIR and Section 164 statements remain on record.
- Court applied Selvamani v. State to retain reliable portions.
-
Identification Parade
- TIP held for five of ten accused; victim and eye-witness recognized them.
- Familiarity with all accused diminishes the significance of TIP omissions.
-
Forensic Evidence
- FSL report detected semen and spermatozoa on victim’s slides, petticoat and underwear of accused.
- Delay in sending exhibits and no DNA test not fatal in presence of corroborative medical and ocular evidence.
-
Overall Assessment
- Convergence of FIR, Section 164, ocular testimony, medical examination and FSL findings amply proves Section 376(d) IPC offence.
- Minor procedural lapses are insufficient to negate cogent evidence of gang rape.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Unexplained five-day delay in lodging FIR undermines reliability.
- Key accused were not subjected to TIP; TIP descriptions conflict with actual build/complexion.
- Vaginal slides and clothing sent late to FSL; no DNA testing conducted.
- FSL custody lapse may have allowed tampering.
- Reliance on Krishna Kumar Malik (2011 7 SCC 130) and Santa Singh (AIR 1956 SC 526) for benefit of doubt.
Respondent
- Delay is socially explicable; victim’s family must deliberate given societal stigma.
- Consistency from FIR through Sections 161/164 CrPC statements; eye-witness corroboration.
- TIP omissions are immaterial where witnesses knew accused prior to incident.
- FSL findings of semen and spermatozoa corroborate rape; DNA testing desirable but not mandatory.
- Conviction supported by medical evidence of multiple abrasions and intercourse.
Factual Background
A 20-year-old maid working in Gholen attended a festival at her native village. On 05-09-2017, she and her acquaintance travelled to Jashpur, then to Kaikachar. In a jungle stretch, ten men (including two juveniles) chased, overpowered and gang-raped her, leaving her semi-clad and injured in a paddy field. She regained consciousness next day, donned borrowed clothes, returned to her sister’s home and, after family deliberation, lodged FIR on 09-09-2017. Investigation under Sections 341, 376(d), 307, 34, 120-B IPC led to convictions by Sessions and Juvenile Courts.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376(d) IPC (gang rape) – principal charge and conviction basis.
- Sections 341, 307, 34, 120-B IPC – framed but ultimate focus on 376(d).
- Section 164 CrPC – relied upon for consistent pre-trial statements.
- Principles governing FIR delays, identification parades and forensic exhibit custody elucidated in line with Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Procedural Innovations
None identified; the judgment applies established procedural principles without issuing new directions or guidelines.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirmation of settled law on hostile witnesses, FIR delay and forensic evidence.
Citations
- Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130
- Santa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 526
- Selvamani v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police 2024 INSC 393
- Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220
- C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567