In a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the testimony of a hostile witness need not be discarded in its entirety. If such testimony is corroborated by reliable medical or scientific evidence, or if portions of it inspire confidence, the Court may rely on it. Dismissing a criminal appeal, the Court upheld the conviction of a man under the POCSO Act, relying primarily on DNA evidence, even though both the victim and her father turned hostile during trial.
Background
The case arose from a 2018 incident in village Talgaon, District Balod, where the appellant Ramesh Kumar was accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl and impregnating her. The victim gave birth to a seven-month stillborn child on 15.08.2018 at Upadhyay Nursing Home, Dhamtari. A report was lodged by Dr. Rashmi Upadhyay, leading to an FIR under Sections 457, 342, 376, 376(2)(ढ), 506 (Part II) IPC and Section 5(ठ)/6 of the POCSO Act.
After trial, the Special Judge (POCSO), Balod, convicted the appellant under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000. The conviction was based on the victim’s initial statement, corroborated by scientific and medical evidence. The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court.
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in convicting him despite the absence of reliable testimony, particularly because the victim and her father retracted their statements in court. It was further submitted that there was no conclusive proof of the victim’s age and that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version.
The State counsel countered that the conviction was firmly supported by documentary and forensic evidence, especially the DNA report.
Court’s Observations
The Court held that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, relying on school records (Exhibits P-14(C) and P-32) that recorded her date of birth as 14.08.2001.
Addressing the hostility of key witnesses, including the victim and her father, the Court reiterated:
“The fact that a witness is deemed ‘hostile’ does not automatically mean their entire testimony must be disregarded. While the Court will scrutinize the evidence of a hostile witness with caution, it can still be relied upon in part if it is corroborated by medical evidence or if certain parts of the testimony inspire confidence.”
The Court cited Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1991) 3 SCC 627] and C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 9 SCC 567], among others, to underline that hostile testimony can still be admissible to the extent it is corroborated.
It found that the DNA report (Exhibit P-35) clearly established the accused as the biological father of the stillborn child, thereby connecting him directly to the commission of the offence. The report was supported by a continuous and verified chain of documentary and medical evidence.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that despite the witnesses turning hostile, the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable scientific and medical evidence. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.
