Back
B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
Selvamani – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By The Inspector of Police – Respondent
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
Evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.
The conviction under the POCSO Act was upheld due to overwhelming medical and DNA evidence, despite the victim's hostile testimony.
Consent is irrelevant in POCSO cases when the victim is a minor, and retrospective imposition of harsher penalties is unconstitutional under Article 20(1).
The conviction under IPC sections was overturned due to insufficient evidence and a hostile witness; mere presumptions do not justify criminal conviction.
Victim's credible testimony in sexual offence cases suffices despite minor discrepancies from cross-examination/illiteracy, FIR delay in conservative society, absent injuries; corroborated by matchin....
Rape – Conviction can never be based on FIR or statement of witnesses recorded during course of investigation – Investigating Officer cannot indirectly prove what witnesses have failed to prove.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of assessing the evidence of hostile witnesses, relying on circumstantial evidence, and the duty of the court to search for the truth.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
