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
conviction - Whether
conviction of Appellant was
justified - Held, Appellant
offered chocolate to young
girl of 8 years who was
having trust upon
Appellant while treating
him as maternal-uncle and
went alongwith him
but Appellant not only
committed heinous crime of
outraging modesty of
deceased but also caused
injury upon head by stone,
which is evident from
opinion given by medical
board in post mortem report
- It is also evident
that deceased tried to resist
but helpless girl was killed
by Appellant,
- Accused crushed all limits
of trust and committed
offence
under Section 302 IPC and
under provisions of POCSO
Act, therefore, while
performing our legal duty,
this Court deem
appropriate to treat this case
as rarest of rare case in
which lesser punishment
than what has been
awarded by trial Court,
cannot be imposed - Court
confirm death sentence -
Murder (Death) Reference
allowed and Appeals
dismissed.
against the accused killed
as there is nothing by the accused appellant,
but aggravating therefore, it is not only a
circumstances case of murder and
evident from the harassing
record of the Court. sexually of young girl of 8
In fact, one has to years but it is a case in
really which all the parameters of
struggle to find out trust
if there were any are crushed by the accused
mitigating appellant. (Pg 39)
circumstances
favouring the
accused. Another
aspect of the matter
is that the minor
child was helpless in
the cruel hands of
the accused. The
accused was holding
the child in a
relationship of
"trust-belief" and
"confidence", in
which capacity he
took the
child from the house
of PW 2. In other
words, the accused,
by his conduct,
it has belied the
human relationship
of trust and
worthiness. The
accused left
the deceased in a
badly injured
condition in the
open field without
even
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.
8. In the Supreme Criminal - Conviction -
Court of India Legality of - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Govindaraju @ (CrPC); Section 27 of
Govinda Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Vs Appeal against conviction
State” recorded by High Court,
setting aside judgment of
{MANU/SC/021 trial Court, acquitting all
1/2012} Accused -
infirmities, Appellant
acquitted of charged offence
- Appeal allowed
9. In the Supreme Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Court of India Section 302/34 -- Murder--
Conviction and
10 & 12)
The applicability of In the present case, on a
the principle of cumulative reading and
'adverse inference' appreciation of the entire
pre- supposes that evidence on record, we are
withholding was of of the considered view that
such material the learned trial Court had
witnesses who could not fallen in error of law or
have stated appreciation of evidence in
precisely and accordance with law. The
cogently the events High Court appears to have
as they occurred. interfered with the
Without their judgment of acquittal only
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)
the autopsy surgeon, the fact that immediately
found the eyes of after the death a crowd had
the deceased half assembled and
“Rajendra & Anr sentence--Whether requires
V State of Uttar interference?--Held, "no"--
Pradesh” F.I.R. lodged
promptly--Hardly any
{2009(2)A C possibility on part of P.W. 1
R1862(SC), A I to implicate appellant
R2009SC2558, falsely--P.W. 4 as eye-
2010(1)A L witness supported
D(Cri)110, prosecution case in entirety-
MANU/SC/0547 -He
/2009} was not tutored witness --
Medical evidence
corroborates prosecution
case-
-Although P.W. 3 declared
hostile--He also supported
to some extent
prosecution case--Evidence
of hostile witness--May not
be totally rejected--
No merit in appeal.
open and the nails people were talking about
of hand and feet the death having been
bluish. He caused to the deceased by
further found Kuti Narpat
Sansaria which is and Rajendra, to some
goose-skin/goose- extent, supported the
flesh in the foot- prosecution case. Both,
base (Talwa). Munna and
Small particles of Surajbhan were named as
sand were found in witnesses in the FIR.
the wind pipe. Although they were
Lungs were found to declared hostile,
have air a part of their statement
bubbles. There can be taken into
existed blood on the consideration for the
left hand side of the purpose of finding
heart and the right out as to whether the
side was appellants are guilty of
found to be empty. commission of the said
According to him, offences or not.
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

10. IN THE Evidence Act (I of
SUPREME 1872)Section 154.The party
COURT OF which calls a witness,
BANGLADESH whether may, with Court's
permission put any question
“Siddique to its witness-The
Munshi mere fact that truth has been
V revealed and has gone
The State” against the party
calling him, whether can
{LEX/BDAD/00 reader his evidence
57/1991} unreliable.Code of Criminal
Procedure (Act V of
1898).Usual practice of
cross-cases.The usual
practice
of cross-cases, whether is
that both should be tried by
the same
Judge.Held: Under Section
154 of the Evidence Act, the
party which calls
a witness may, with courts,
permission, put any question
to its witness
which might be put in cross
examination by the adverse
party. Opinions
were divided as to the value
of the evidence of a hostile
witness.
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)
how far the the defence did not first
evidence of the agree that there were a case
witnesses declared and a countercase,
hostile by the since, according to them,
prosecution can be time and place of the two
relied upon. There is incidents were different.
a general principle And Secondly, they never
which prohibits the wanted the two cases to be
prosecution to tried by the same court. Of
cross-examine their course, it is for the court to
own witnesses, decide whether the cases
since those before him are cross-cases
witnesses are and
always whether it would be proper
biased or friendly for better appreciation of
with the the facts if they should be
prosecution. But tried
under Section 154 simultaneously, according
of the Evidence Act, to the usual procedure.
the party which calls Very often, one party tries
a witness, may, with to shift
court's permission, the venue and change the
put any question to time and manner of an
its incident, pretending that no
witness which might such
be put in cross- occurrence as alleged by
examination by the the adverse party took
adverse party. place, but a different
Opinions were incident took
divided as to the place elsewhere at a
value of the different lime. (Pg 11)
evidence of a hostile
witness, and one
view was that
evidence of a hostile

11.
IN THE Criminal - bribery -
SUPREME witnesses contradicted
COURT OF their previous statement in
INDIA- cross-examination -
witnesses found to be
“Sat Paul Vs. interested and having
Delhi motive to implicate
Administration appellant - thus it would
.” not be safe to convict
appellant on basis of
AIR 1976 SC statement of such
294; witnesses - prosecution
case did not support guilt
of appellant.
witness should not
be relied upon at all,
whether it goes in
favour of the
prosecution or the
defence. (Pg8)
Supreme Court The fact that the witness
described hostile was declared hostile at
witnesses and laid the instance of the
that to steer clear Public Prosecutor and he
controversy over was allowed to cross-
the meaning of examine the witness
hostile witnesses furnishes no justification
which had given for rejecting en bloc the
rise to difficulty evidence of the witness.
and conflict of However, the court has
opinions. to be very careful, as
prima facie, a witness
who makes different
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
(1996) 10 circumstances read
SCC 360 together point only to one
inevitable conclusion - first
respondent committed
murder of his wife - held,
acquittal of first
respondent set aside.
13. IN THE Girl students of University,
SUPREME while on tour had been
COURT OF victims of a heinous crime
INDIA at tail end of their
programme - Appellants
“C. were fully aware that girls
Muniappan might not be able to
and Ors. Vs. escape, when they set bus
State of on fire - However, as it
Tamil Nadu.” happened, some of girls
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 -
IN SUPREME Evidentiary value of the
COURT OF Accomplice/Approver,
INDIA eyewitnesses and hostile
witnesses - Sections 113
“Mrinal Das and 114 of the Indian
and another Evidence Act - Held, that
Vs. State of an accomplice/approver is
Tripura.” a competent witness but
as he has participated in
the commission of the
offence, his evidence must
be corroborated in
material particulars by
other independent
evidence - Evidence of eye
witnesses and the hostile
MANU/SC/1 witnesses can be given
030/2011 credibility if it is
corroborated in material
particulars - Hence, the
scrutiny and that
portion of the
evidence which is
consistent with
the case of the
prosecution or
defence may be
accepted.”
"If evidence is The Supreme Court has
proved by similarly held that the
eyewitnesses its evidence of a hostile
validity cannot be witness cannot be
challenged." discarded as a whole,
and relevant parts
thereof which are
admissible in law, can be
used by the prosecution
or the defence.
"The evidence of The fact that the witness
eye witnesses and was declared hostile at
the hostile the instance of the
witnesses can be Public Prosecutor and he
given credibility if was allowed to cross-
it is corroborated examine the witness
in material furnishes no justification
particulars." for rejecting en bloc the
"Appellate Court evidence of the witness.
would not However, the court has
interfere unless to be very careful, as
the approach of prima facie, a witness
the Lower Court is who makes different
vitiated by some statements at different
illegality and error times, has no regard for
in law and ignore the truth. His evidence
the material has to be read and
evidence on considered as a whole
record." with a view to find out
whether any weight
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