Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

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