Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

Consistency in Victim's Testimony Crucial for Conviction in Gang Rape Case, Says Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court has upheld the convictions of four men in a high-profile gang rape case, rejecting the appellants' arguments regarding inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and medical evidence. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Syam Kumar V.M., emphasizes the robustness of the victim's account and corroborative evidence from an eyewitness, reaffirming the legal principles surrounding the evaluation of evidence in sexual assault cases.

The case involved the abduction and gang rape of a woman by four men, referred to as A1 to A4, on February 14, 2015. The victim and another woman were taken to an isolated location under the pretext of a job offer, where the assault occurred. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim (PW1) and an eyewitness (PW2), along with medical reports and recovery of stolen items from the accused, to establish the guilt of the appellants.

The court underscored the importance of the victim's consistent and detailed testimony throughout the investigation and trial. Despite minor inconsistencies pointed out by the defense, the bench held that the core account of the incident remained unchanged and credible. "The consistent stand in all the statements aforementioned has been that she was sexually assaulted by a group of four persons," the judgment noted​​The court found significant corroboration in the testimony of PW2, an eyewitness who observed the incident. Her deposition that all four accused were involved in the assault was not challenged during cross-examination, thereby strengthening the prosecution's case. The court cited the Supreme Court's standard for a "sterling witness" to validate the reliability of PW2's testimony​​.

Addressing the defense's argument about discrepancies in medical reports, the court acknowledged minor variations but dismissed them as insufficient to undermine the victim's testimony. The judgment emphasized that the injuries recorded were consistent with the victim's account of the assault, rejecting the contention that the medical evidence suggested otherwise​​.

The judgment reiterated that the testimony of a rape victim does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence and is credible. The court highlighted the principle that minor contradictions should not discredit an otherwise reliable account of the incident. "If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars"​​.

However, the court found no substantial evidence to support the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC against the accused, leading to their acquittal on that count. The court clarified that an agreement to commit an offense must be established independently, which was not done in this case​​.

Justice Nambiar remarked, "The unimpeached testimony of PW2, who is an eye-witness to the incident, satisfies the requirements of the testimony of a sterling witness... The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation"​​.

The Kerala High Court's affirmation of the lower courts' findings in this gang rape case sends a strong message about the reliability of victim testimonies and the corroborative value of eyewitness accounts. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice in cases of sexual violence and is expected to influence the handling of similar cases in the future, ensuring that credible victim testimonies are given due weight.

 

Date of Decision: June 12, 2024

State of Kerala vs. Athul and Others

Similar News