Supreme Court Upholds Gang Rape Conviction and Reiterates That Testimony of a Hostile Witness Can Be Relied Upon

In Selvamani v. State represented by the Inspector of Police (2024 Latest Caselaw 314 SC), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a gang rape case and reiterated that the evidence of a witness does not become wholly unreliable merely because the witness subsequently turns hostile. The Court observed that the credible portions of such testimony may still be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence and emphasised the importance of completing cross-examination without undue delay to safeguard the fairness of criminal trials. 

The prosecution alleged that the 22-year-old victim, while returning home from work on 27 January 2006, was taken by her employer to a secluded place where she was forcibly dragged by the accused persons, threatened with a knife and subjected to gang rape throughout the night. After escaping the following morning, she informed her mother and aunt, following which an FIR was promptly registered. During investigation, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, medical examination was conducted and the accused persons were arrested. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(g) and Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the prosecutrix, her mother and her aunt had not supported the prosecution during cross-examination and that the medical evidence did not establish the prosecution case. 

Whether the conviction could be sustained where prosecution witnesses partially resiled from their earlier statements during cross-examination, and whether the evidence on record was sufficient to uphold the conviction for gang rape. 

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal. The Court observed that: •The prosecutrix had clearly narrated the incident during her examination-in-chief, describing the manner in which the accused forcibly committed gang rape upon her. •Her testimony was corroborated by the prompt FIR, her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the medical evidence. •The medical expert confirmed multiple injuries, evidence of forcible sexual intercourse and abrasions on the victim's private parts. •Although the prosecutrix, her mother and her aunt partly resiled from their earlier versions during cross-examination, such cross-examination took place nearly three and a half months after their examination-in-chief. •The prolonged gap created a real possibility that the witnesses had been won over or influenced. •The law is well settled that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in its entirety. Courts may rely upon those portions of the testimony that are found to be credible and corroborated by other evidence. •The decision in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) was distinguishable because, unlike the present case, the medical evidence there did not support the allegation of forcible gang rape. The Court also reiterated its earlier concern regarding unnecessary adjournments between examination-in-chief and cross-examination, observing that such delays create opportunities for witness intimidation and seriously undermine the administration of criminal justice. 

The Supreme Court: •Dismissed the appeal. •Upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. •Affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for gang rape and the related offences. 

The judgment reinforces the settled principle that the testimony of a hostile witness is not rendered wholly inadmissible merely because the witness departs from an earlier version. Courts are entitled to rely upon those portions of the evidence that are trustworthy and corroborated by independent material. The decision also serves as an important reminder to trial courts that cross-examination should ordinarily follow examination-in-chief without unnecessary adjournments, thereby preserving the integrity of witness testimony and ensuring fair criminal trials.