Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. The State of Gujarat
Background
A 9-year-old girl (the prosecutrix) was sexually assaulted in 2004 while grazing buffaloes. She was medically examined the same day, confirming the assault, and identified the appellant in a Test Identification Parade two days later. Six months after the incident, however, both the victim and her child companion-witness turned hostile at trial and denied the assault, leading the trial court to acquit the appellant; the Gujarat High Court later reversed this acquittal and convicted him based on medical evidence, forensic (blood-group) evidence, and the earlier identification parade.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that a hostile witness's turnaround does not automatically entitle an accused to acquittal when strong corroborating evidence exists independently: here, the medical report confirming the assault, the semen found on both the victim's and the appellant's clothing matching Group B, and the properly conducted Test Identification Parade. The Court reasoned that the six-month gap before the prosecutrix's trial deposition gave ample opportunity for the appellant to pressure or influence her and her family into retracting, and that courts must not let a criminal trial be reduced to a "theatre of the absurd" by allowing coerced hostility to defeat otherwise overwhelming evidence. The Court also found no prejudice arose even though the serological report was not formally put to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, since the omission was the trial court's failure, not the prosecution's suppression. The appeal was dismissed, though the Court declined to prosecute the prosecutrix for false evidence given her age at the time and the 14 years that had passed.
Lesson Learnt
A conviction can stand on strong corroborating medical, forensic, and identification evidence even if the victim is later pressured into turning hostile at trial: the law does not let intimidation of a witness erase an otherwise well-proven case.