Table of Contents
2013 (2) ACR 1992 – Supreme Court #
A 2 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India correctly recognised that extreme delays, shoddy investigation and the stress of the criminal justice system can turn victims hostile to the proceedings, as they can be intimidated or influenced. It acknowledges that trying circumstances which led to a victim turning ‘hostile’ and handed down a judgment that correctly reprimanded the investigating authorities and lower courts for creating an environment where the victim could be coerced or intimidated.
- We have gone through their depositions and it is clear that in the earlier part of their evidence, both the witnesses had clearly implicated all these accused. The FIR could not be lodged immediately after the incident, as there was no one in the family to support their cause. Smt. Jaswant Kaur (PW-2) had to send a telegram to her husband and it is only after he reached their place, that FIR was lodged. The victim was examined on several dates within the period of two years and she had been consistent throughout, that rape had been committed upon her. However, her father died during the trial and it may be because of his death that both the prosecutrix and her mother had resiled to a certain extent from the prosecution case. Naturally, when the protective shield of their family had withered away, the victim and her mother could have come under immense pressure from the Appellants. The trial Court itself has expressed its anguish as to how the accused had purposely delayed and dragged the examination of the prosecutrix and finally succeeded in their nefarious objective when the father of the prosecutrix died and the prosecutrix resiled on the last date of her cross-examination. The Appellants belonged to a well-to-do family, while the prosecutrix came from poorest state of the society. Thus, a sudden change in their attitude is understandable.
- ….In the instant case, it is shocking that the mother of the prosecutrix had turned hostile and she repeatedly told the court that there had been some talks of compromise. In a case where an offence of this nature had been committed, we fail to understand as to how there can be a compromise between the parties. The conduct of the mother herself is reprehensible.
- It is a settled legal proposition that statement of a hostile witness can also be examined to the extent that it supports the case of the prosecution. The trial court record reveals a very sorry state of affairs, inasmuch as no step had ever been taken by the prosecution or the Investigating Officer, to prevent the witnesses from turning hostile, as it is their solemn duty to ensure that the witnesses are examined in such a manner that their statement must be recorded, at the earliest, and they should be assured full protection.
- There is nothing on record, not even a suggestion by the appellants to the effect that the victim had any motive or previous enmity with the appellants, to involve them in this case. Unfortunately, the trial court went against the spirit of law, while dealing with such a sensitive case of rape of a student by her teachers, by recording the statement of prosecutrix on five different dates. Thus, a reasonable inference can be drawn that defence had an opportunity to win her mother.
