Hostile Testimony Cannot Supersede Corroborated Section 164 CrPC Statements Backed by Scientific Medical Evidence

The appellant, Md. Saheb, was accused of committing rape on his 13-year-old minor daughter on September 24, 2010.

The informant (appellant's wife/P.W.4) alleged that she found her daughter unconscious and saw the appellant hiding.

She further alleged that on September 28, 2010, the appellant attempted to assault the minor again, leading to his capture by villagers.

During the trial, all eight material witnesses—including the victim and the informant—turned hostile and denied the allegations.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC, sentencing him to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment, relying on the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate (Ext. 7) and medical evidence (Ext. 6).

Section 376 of the IPC regarding the punishment for rape.

A statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be discarded merely because a witness retracts it, as it carries judicial satisfaction, as established in Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (2024).

The principle regarding the heightened duty of courts to protect children in sexual abuse cases as cited in State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2002) and Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023).

The principle that a prosecutrix turning hostile is not fatal if other evidence establishes guilt and that a victim's reliable testimony requires no further corroboration, as per Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2019) and Ganesan v. State (2020).

The Court observed that while Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements are not substantive evidence on their own, they are crucial for corroboration when family members retract allegations due to social pressure or dependency.

The Court found that the victim's statement before the Magistrate (Ext. 7) was recorded after due caution and explicitly detailed the rape.

This "initial disclosure" was bridged by the "unimpeachable scientific evidence" of the medical report (P.W. 8), which found healed hymenal tears and a genital condition consistent with penetration.

The Court reasoned that the hostility of the witnesses (P.W. 1-6) was a result of family pressure and could not outweigh the judicial statement and objective forensic findings.

The court held that the trial judge's duty is heightened in child abuse cases to ensure that "perverse lust" does not go unpunished due to witness intimidation.

The High Court upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence (10 years RI) passed by the Additional Session Judge, Darbhanga; the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith.