Rape : Victim and her husband turned hostile - Court cannot presume that witnesses, won over by accused

Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape Due to Lack of Corroborative Evidence Conviction Overturned by Supreme Court Citing Insufficient Evidence and Reliance on Hostile Witnesses

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Dr. Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel, previously convicted of rape by the Gujarat High Court, underscoring the need for robust and corroborative evidence in criminal convictions. The decision, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, emphasizes that convictions cannot rest solely on First Information Reports (FIRs) or statements made during investigations without substantive evidence during the trial.

The case originated in 2001 when the victim alleged that Dr. Patel, a practicing doctor in Himmatnagar, Gujarat, sexually assaulted her under the pretense of a medical examination. The prosecution's case faced significant challenges when both the victim and her husband turned hostile during the trial, retracting their initial statements. Despite this, the Trial Court convicted Dr. Patel, and the Gujarat High Court later enhanced his sentence from six to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Supreme Court's decision to acquit was heavily influenced by the lack of supporting medical evidence and the unreliability of hostile witnesses. The medical examination conducted on the victim did not reveal injuries consistent with her allegations, and the testimonies of independent witnesses failed to corroborate the prosecution's narrative. Notably, the Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for presuming that the witnesses had been won over by the accused without substantive proof.

The judgment also highlighted procedural lapses, such as the absence of testimony from independent witnesses who were reportedly present during the incident. Furthermore, the forensic evidence, which included the presence of semen stains, was deemed insufficient due to conflicting testimonies regarding the collection and handling of evidence.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reiterates the principles laid down in previous judgments, asserting that mere allegations or statements in an FIR cannot suffice for a conviction. The Court stressed the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution when dealing with hostile witnesses.

This ruling not only brings relief to Dr. Patel but also sets a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the accused while ensuring justice for victims. The acquittal underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of fair trial and due process.

Bottom Line:

Conviction cannot solely be based on FIR or statements during investigation unless supported by cogent evidence during the trial.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2)(d), Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822455