Index of Landmark Judgments of Indian Courts

pertaining to POCSO Cases.

(A) Cases pertaining to Hostile Witnesses

S.no CASE NAME/ CASE NOTE RATIO CONCLUSION(s)
CITATION/ DECIDENDI
DATE OF
JUDGMENT/
ORDER(s)
1. IN THE Criminal - Grant of bail - threats were extended to
SUPREME Validity thereof - the prosecutrix as well as
COURT OF Respondent was facing trial, her
INDIA wherein he was charged for family members.
committing various offences Therefore, we feel that the
“State of Bihar V - Respondent's High Court should not
Rajballav bail application was have granted bail
Prasad” dismissed by Trial Court - to the Respondent ignoring
Respondent preferred all the material and
{MANU/SC/152 another bail petition before substantial aspects pointed
5/2016, High Court - High Court out by us,
2017(1)A C directed release of which were the relevant
R285, A I Respondent on bail - Certain considerations.
R2017SC630} conditions were also (Pg 27)
imposed while granting
bail - Hence, present appeal
by State - Whether High
Court should not have
granted bail to Respondent.
2. In the High Criminal - Capital When the Court the accused appellant not
Court of Punishment - Confirmation draws a balance only committed heinous
Rajasthan of Death - Corroboration of sheet of the crime of
Evidence - section 302 of aggravating and outraging the majesty of
“State of Indian Penal Code, 1860 mitigating the deceased but also
Rajasthan and
(IPC) and Section 3 & 4 circumstances, for caused injury upon the
others V
of the POCSO Act2012 - the purposes of head by stone,
Prahald and
others” Present Death reference determining whether which is evident from the
filed by State for the extreme opinion given by the
{MANU/RH/072 confirmation of capital sentence of death medical board in the post
5/2016, punishment awarded to should be imposed mortem
2016CriLJ4738} Appellant / accused under upon the accused or report. It is also evident
section 302 IPC and not, the scale of that the deceased tried to
Sections 3 & 4 of Act - justice only tilts resist but helpless girl was
Present Appeals filed against the accused killed
against as there is nothing by the accused appellant,
conviction - Whether but aggravating therefore, it is not only a
conviction of Appellant was circumstances case of murder and
justified - Held, Appellant evident from the harassing
offered chocolate to young record of the Court. sexually of young girl of 8
girl of 8 years who was In fact, one has to years but it is a case in
having trust upon really which all the parameters of
Appellant while treating struggle to find out trust
him as maternal-uncle and if there were any are crushed by the accused
went alongwith him mitigating appellant. (Pg 39)
but Appellant not only circumstances
committed heinous crime of favouring the
outraging modesty of accused. Another
deceased but also caused aspect of the matter
injury upon head by stone, is that the minor
which is evident from child was helpless in
opinion given by medical the cruel hands of
board in post mortem report the accused. The
- It is also evident accused was holding
that deceased tried to resist the child in a
but helpless girl was killed relationship of
by Appellant, "trust-belief" and
- Accused crushed all limits "confidence", in
of trust and committed which capacity he
offence took the
under Section 302 IPC and child from the house
under provisions of POCSO of PW 2. In other
Act, therefore, while words, the accused,
performing our legal duty, by his conduct,
this Court deem it has belied the
appropriate to treat this case human relationship
as rarest of rare case in of trust and
which lesser punishment worthiness. The
than what has been accused left
awarded by trial Court, the deceased in a
cannot be imposed - Court badly injured
confirm death sentence - condition in the
Murder (Death) Reference open field without
allowed and Appeals even
dismissed. clothes. (Pg 34)
3. In the High Criminal - Production of
Court of document - Petition filed
Gujarat against rejection of
application for production
“Vijay Natvarlal of documents - Whether
Tank V State of Trial Court committed
Gujarat & ors” error in rejecting application
for production of documents
{MANU/GJ/005 - Held, Court has
7/2018} to find out nothing but truth
with reference to any
dispute and charges
filed before it - Accused
might not be denied either
opportunity to produce
any information and
evidence or to call upon
same - Charge was already
framed and deposition of as
many as seven witnesses
have been already
recorded - Therefore before
initiating further
proceeding, if accused has
asked Court to call for
certain documents so as to
contradict further
witness, there was no bar to
call upon such documents
from person who
was in possession of
documents - Trial Court
issue witness summons for
production of documents as
per such application -
Petition disposed of.

5 IN THE Criminal- Suspension of Courts must

In the year 2006, the
SUPREME sentence and grant of consider various
COURT OF bail. Held, in serious factors like gravity trial court based on the
INDIA offences like murder, of offence, etc.
statements of the hostile
sentence would generally before suspending
“SiddharthVas be not suspended by the the sentence. witnesses, acquitted
hisht @ Manu court.
Sharma Vs. Sharma. However,
The State Sharma was punished
(N.C.T. of
 Delhi).”
with a sentence of life
(2010) 6 SCC imprisonment and a fine
1
later on.

6. In the Supreme Section 2(d) of the Bihar The Motor Vehicles The permit holder is the
Court of India Taxation on Passengers and Act,1939 in sections owner within the definition
Goods (carried by Public 54, 55 and 56 deal of the "owner" in the Bihar
“Jagir singh & Service Motor Vehicles) with applications for Act and other Acts and is
oths V State of Act, 1961, Motor Vehicles- public carrier's also the "operator" within
Bihar” Act, 1939, permit, procedure in the meaning of the word
considering "operator" in other Acts to
{1976 AIR 997, application for which reference has been
1976 SCR (2) public carriers made. The liability to pay
809} permit and grant of tax is of the permit holder
public carrier's in all cases.
permit. Section (page 10)
59 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939
states that save as
provided in section
61, a permit shall
not be transferable
from one person to
another except with
the permission of
the transport
authority which
granted the permit
and shall not
without such
permission operate
to confer on any
person to whom a
vehicle covered by
the permit is
transferred any right
to use that vehicle in
the manner
authorised by the
permit. Section
61 speaks of transfer
of permit on the
death of the
holder.(page 9 last
 para)
7. In the Supreme Indian Penal Code, 1860-- A rough sketch map the findings recorded by
Court Of India Section 148, 307, 302 and prepared by the sub- the High Court on the basis
448--Indian Arms Act, inspector oh the of the site plan
“State of 1959--Section 3/25-- basis of prepared by the
Rajasthan V Murder--Acquittal-- statements made to investigating officer
Conviction and sentence-- him by witnesses whereby it discarded the
Bhawani &
Conviction and sentence re- during the course of prosecution case is
Anr” stored. [Para 6, 9, 10, 11 and investigation and clearly illegal being based
13]Criminal Law—Witness- showing the place upon inadmissible
AIR2003SC423 . [ParaCriminal Law-- where the deceased evidence and has to be set
0, Witness--Non-injured-- was hit and also the aside.
2003(2)ALD(Cri Presence of--Credibility-- places where the
)490, Wife and daughter of witnesses were at Having given our careful
2003(2)ALT(Cri deceased--Held--No reason the time of the consideration to the
)187, to doubt their presence on incident would not material on record, we are
2003CriL J3857 the spot. [Para 6]Criminal be admissible in clearly
Procedure Code, evidence in view of of the opinion that the
1973--Section 386-- the provisions of prosecution had succeeded
Infraction of--High Court Section 162 of the in establishing its case
reversed the finding Code of Criminal against the
recorded Procedure, for it is accused-respondents
by trial Court--Without in effect nothing beyond any shadow of
considering and taking into more than the doubt and the learned
account' the testimony statement of the Additional
of eye-witnesses--Held-- Sub- Sessions Judge had rightly
Clear infraction of Section Inspector that the convicted and sentenced
386 of CrPC--And order eye-witnesses told them. The judgment of the
of acquittal passed by it is him that the High
likely to be set aside. [Para deceased was at Court, in our opinion, is
7]"Criminal such and wholly illegal and
Procedure Code, 1973-- such place at the perverse. It is not a case
Section 162--Site plan-- time when he was where two views
Admissibility of--Places hit. The sketch-map are possible. In fact, on the
from the accused entered would be admissible evidence available on
and from where they so far as it indicates record, the only conclusion
resorted to firing is based all that the Sub- which
upon the statement of Inspector saw can be drawn is that the
witnesses-Held--Hit by himself at the prosecution had succeeded
Section 162 of CrPC--What spot.(Pg 10) in establishing its case
the IO saw and noted alone beyond
would be admissible-- any shadow of doubt and
Whereby it discarded the accused-respondents are
prosecution case is clearly clearly guilty of the
illegal--Being based upon charges
inadmissible evidence leveled against them.(Pg
 and has to be set aside. 10 & 12)
8. In the Supreme Criminal - Conviction - The applicability of In the present case, on a
Court of India Legality of - Code of the principle of cumulative reading and
Criminal Procedure, 1973 'adverse inference' appreciation of the entire
“Govindaraju @ (CrPC); Section 27 of pre- supposes that evidence on record, we are
Govinda Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - withholding was of of the considered view that
Vs Appeal against conviction such material the learned trial Court had
State” recorded by High Court, witnesses who could not fallen in error of law or
setting aside judgment of have stated appreciation of evidence in
{MANU/SC/021 trial Court, acquitting all precisely and accordance with law. The
1/2012} Accused - cogently the events High Court appears to have
infirmities, Appellant as they occurred. interfered with the
acquitted of charged offence Without their judgment of acquittal only
- Appeal allowed examination, there on the basis that 'there was
would remain a possibility of another
a vacuum in the view'. The prosecution
case of the must prove its case beyond
prosecution. The any reasonable doubt. Such
doctor was a cited is not the burden on the
witness but was still accused. The High Court
not examined. The has acted on certain legal
name of the Head and factual presumptions
Constable and the which cannot be sustained
Constable appears on the basis of the record
in the before us and the principle
Police investigation of laws afore-noticed. The
but still they were case of the prosecution,
not examined. It is thus, suffers from proven
true that in their improbabilities
absence , infirmities, contradictions
the post mortem and the statement of the
report and FSL sole witness, the Police
report were Officer, Public Witness, is
exhibited and could not reliable and worthy of
be read in evidence. credence. (Pg 47)
But still the lacuna
in the case of the
prosecution remains
unexplained and the
chain
of events
unconnected.(Pg
45)
9. In the Supreme Indian Penal Code, 1860 - the autopsy surgeon, the fact that immediately
Court of India Section 302/34 -- Murder-- found the eyes of after the death a crowd had
Conviction and the deceased half assembled and
“Rajendra & Anr sentence--Whether requires open and the nails people were talking about
V State of Uttar interference?--Held, "no"-- of hand and feet the death having been
Pradesh” F.I.R. lodged bluish. He caused to the deceased by
promptly--Hardly any further found Kuti Narpat
{2009(2)A C possibility on part of P.W. 1 Sansaria which is and Rajendra, to some
R1862(SC), A I to implicate appellant goose-skin/goose- extent, supported the
R2009SC2558, falsely--P.W. 4 as eye- flesh in the foot- prosecution case. Both,
2010(1)A L witness supported base (Talwa). Munna and
D(Cri)110, prosecution case in entirety- Small particles of Surajbhan were named as
MANU/SC/0547 -He sand were found in witnesses in the FIR.
/2009} was not tutored witness -- the wind pipe. Although they were
Medical evidence Lungs were found to declared hostile,
corroborates prosecution have air a part of their statement
case- bubbles. There can be taken into
-Although P.W. 3 declared existed blood on the consideration for the
hostile--He also supported left hand side of the purpose of finding
to some extent heart and the right out as to whether the
prosecution case--Evidence side was appellants are guilty of
of hostile witness--May not found to be empty. commission of the said
be totally rejected-- According to him, offences or not.
No merit in appeal. the death took place It is a well settled law that
12 hours before the the evidence of a hostile
post witness may not be totally
mortem rejected, and subject to
examination. The closure scrutiny, a portion
cause of death, in thereof which is consistent
his opinion, was due with
to drowning which the case of prosecution or
caused asphyxia. In defence, may be
his cross- accepted.(Pg17)
examination, he
stated that it might
be possible that
the deceased had
committed suicide.
But that was only a
possibility. If the
evidence
of the eye-witnesses
is to be believed and
found to be reliable
and we do not find
any reason as to
why they should not
be so held, only
because autopsy
 surgeon
talked of some other
possibility, as it
would not lead to
the conclusion that
the
medical evidence
did not corroborate
the prosecution
case.(Pg 15)

10. IN THE Evidence Act (I of how far the the defence did not first
SUPREME 1872)Section 154.The party evidence of the agree that there were a case
COURT OF which calls a witness, witnesses declared and a countercase,
BANGLADESH whether may, with Court's hostile by the since, according to them,
permission put any question prosecution can be time and place of the two
“Siddique to its witness-The relied upon. There is incidents were different.
Munshi mere fact that truth has been a general principle And Secondly, they never
V revealed and has gone which prohibits the wanted the two cases to be
The State” against the party prosecution to tried by the same court. Of
calling him, whether can cross-examine their course, it is for the court to
{LEX/BDAD/00 reader his evidence own witnesses, decide whether the cases
57/1991} unreliable.Code of Criminal since those before him are cross-cases
Procedure (Act V of witnesses are and
1898).Usual practice of always whether it would be proper
cross-cases.The usual biased or friendly for better appreciation of
practice with the the facts if they should be
of cross-cases, whether is prosecution. But tried
that both should be tried by under Section 154 simultaneously, according
the same of the Evidence Act, to the usual procedure.
Judge.Held: Under Section the party which calls Very often, one party tries
154 of the Evidence Act, the a witness, may, with to shift
party which calls court's permission, the venue and change the
a witness may, with courts, put any question to time and manner of an
permission, put any question its incident, pretending that no
to its witness witness which might such
which might be put in cross be put in cross- occurrence as alleged by
examination by the adverse examination by the the adverse party took
party. Opinions adverse party. place, but a different
were divided as to the value Opinions were incident took
of the evidence of a hostile divided as to the place elsewhere at a
witness. value of the different lime. (Pg 11)
evidence of a hostile
witness, and one
view was that
evidence of a hostile
 witness should not
be relied upon at all,
whether it goes in
favour of the
prosecution or the
defence. (Pg8)
11.
IN THE Criminal - bribery - Supreme Court The fact that the witness
SUPREME witnesses contradicted described hostile was declared hostile at
COURT OF their previous statement in witnesses and laid the instance of the
INDIA- cross-examination - that to steer clear Public Prosecutor and he
witnesses found to be controversy over was allowed to cross-
“Sat Paul Vs. interested and having the meaning of examine the witness
Delhi motive to implicate hostile witnesses furnishes no justification
Administration appellant - thus it would which had given for rejecting en bloc the
.” not be safe to convict rise to difficulty evidence of the witness.
appellant on basis of and conflict of However, the court has
AIR 1976 SC statement of such opinions. to be very careful, as
294; witnesses - prosecution prima facie, a witness
case did not support guilt who makes different
of appellant. statements at different
times, has no regard for
the truth. His evidence
has to be read and
considered as a whole
with a view to find out
whether any weight
should be attached to it.
The court should be slow
to act on the testimony
of such a witness,
normally, it should look
for corroboration with
other witnesses.

12. IN THE Section 302 of Indian “It is equally Courts should

SUPREME Penal Code, 1860 - settled law that meticulously analyze the
COURT OF conviction of first the evidence of a statements of the
INDIA respondent for murder of hostile witness victims who turn hostile
his wife set aside by High would not be as there is a very fine
“State of Court - theory of alibi and totally rejected if possibility that they
Uttar some stranger committing spoken in favour might not be speaking
Pradesh vs. murder not true nor of the prosecution the truth.
Ram Prasad probable - defence put or the accused,
Misra and forward by accused highly but it can be
another.” improbable and subjected to close
 unbelievable - all scrutiny and that
(1996) 10 circumstances read portion of the
SCC 360 together point only to one evidence which is
inevitable conclusion - first consistent with
respondent committed the case of the
murder of his wife - held, prosecution or
acquittal of first defence may be
respondent set aside. accepted.”

13. IN THE Girl students of University, "If evidence is The Supreme Court has
SUPREME while on tour had been proved by similarly held that the
COURT OF victims of a heinous crime eyewitnesses its evidence of a hostile
INDIA at tail end of their validity cannot be witness cannot be
programme - Appellants challenged." discarded as a whole,
“C. were fully aware that girls and relevant parts
Muniappan might not be able to thereof which are
and Ors. Vs. escape, when they set bus admissible in law, can be
State of on fire - However, as it used by the prosecution
Tamil Nadu.” happened, some of girls or the defence.
did not escape burning bus
(2010) 9 SCC as a consequence of
567 actions of three girls stood
to death and about 20 girls
received burn injuries on
several parts of their
bodies.

14. Law of Evidence - "The evidence of The fact that the witness
IN SUPREME Evidentiary value of the eye witnesses and was declared hostile at
COURT OF Accomplice/Approver, the hostile the instance of the
INDIA eyewitnesses and hostile witnesses can be Public Prosecutor and he
witnesses - Sections 113 given credibility if was allowed to cross-
“Mrinal Das and 114 of the Indian it is corroborated examine the witness
and another Evidence Act - Held, that in material furnishes no justification
Vs. State of an accomplice/approver is particulars." for rejecting en bloc the
Tripura.” a competent witness but "Appellate Court evidence of the witness.
as he has participated in would not However, the court has
the commission of the interfere unless to be very careful, as
offence, his evidence must the approach of prima facie, a witness
be corroborated in the Lower Court is who makes different
material particulars by vitiated by some statements at different
other independent illegality and error times, has no regard for
evidence - Evidence of eye in law and ignore the truth. His evidence
witnesses and the hostile the material has to be read and
MANU/SC/1 witnesses can be given evidence on considered as a whole
030/2011 credibility if it is record." with a view to find out
corroborated in material whether any weight
particulars - Hence, the should be attached to it.
 view taken by the High The court should be slow
Court is fully endorsed. to act on the testimony
of such a witness,
normally, it should look
for corroboration with
other witnesses.

15. IN THE Criminal- Suspension of Courts must

In the year 2006, the
SUPREME sentence and grant of bail. consider various
COURT OF Held, in serious offences factors like gravity trial court based on the
INDIA like murder, sentence of offence, etc.
statements of the hostile
would generally be not before suspending
“SiddharthVa suspended by the court. the sentence. witnesses, acquitted
shisht @
Manu Sharma. However,
Sharma Vs. Sharma was punished
The State
(N.C.T. of with a sentence of life
Delhi).” imprisonment and a fine

(2010) 6 SCC later on.

1