IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.

1. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 27th August 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras¹[Hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”], whereby vide a common judgment, the High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos. 449 and 840 of 2012. The present Appellant, who is Accused No. 2, had filed the Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2012, along with Accused Nos. 3 and 4, under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973²[Hereinafter referred to as, “CrPC”], challenging the judgment and order dated 26th June 2012, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. III, Thirupathur, Vellore District³[Hereinafter referred to as, “trial court”], in Sessions Case No. 277 of 2010, whereby the trial court had convicted and sentenced the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴[Hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”], and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as given below:

2.1 On 28th January 2006, Police Station Vaniyampadi Town received a written information from the victim (PW-1), to the effect that she had been gang raped. On the basis of the said written information, Police Station Vaniyampadi Town registered a First Information Report (FIR), vide P.S. Crime No. 115 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376 and 506(2) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act. On registration of the FIR, Shri Loganthan, Inspector of Police, Vanianpadi Town Police Station (PW-13) (I.O.) visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar and sketch. He recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused persons were arrested. The medical officer examined the victim and her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupattur.

2.2 The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the victim was working at Emerald Shoe Company, Vaniyampadi for three years leading upto the day of the incident. On the day of the incident, i.e., 27th January 2006, at about 7 PM, when the victim, aged 22 years, was returning to her house, after completing her work, the Accused No. 1 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 (Accused Nos. 2 to 5) were standing, who then forcibly dragged her to a secluded place and threatened to throw her on the railway track if she shouted. They then stripped her. The victim cried for help, upon which she was threatened with a knife. The accused persons committed gang rape on her. Accused No. 1 assaulted the victim as well. The act continued till 3:30 AM, the next morning, when she escaped and came back to her house. On her return, she informed her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-3) and later during the same day, she got the FIR registered.

2.3 At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed by the I.O. in the Court of Vanianpadi Judicial Magistrate. Since the offence charged against the accused persons was triable only by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, and the same was made over to the learned trial court, for disposal.

2.4 Charges were framed by the trial court under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act.

2.5 The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined fourteen (14) witnesses, twenty-five (25) exhibits were marked along with two (2) material objects. The defence of the accused was that they had been falsely implicated. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable