In a resolute stance, the Supreme Court, echoing the wisdom of the High Court and Trial Court, stood steadfast in its decision on Wednesday. The case, which held the courtroom in rapt attention, centered on the credibility of a prosecution witness turning hostile under cross-examination.
The bench, composed of the esteemed Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, delivered a ruling that sent ripples across legal circles. They adamantly refused to overturn the conviction merely because a key prosecution witness failed to toe the expected line during cross-examination.
What captured the essence of the Court’s verdict was its recognition of the intricate dance between testimony and circumstance. Despite the prosecution witness’s apparent defection, the Court discerned a pattern. It observed a notable shift in the witnesses’ demeanor from their initial statements to their cross-examination—a shift indicative, perhaps, of influence exerted by the accused.
Drawing from legal precedent, notably the case of C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court upheld a nuanced approach. It decreed that while the witness’s testimony might bear the mark of alteration, it couldn’t be summarily discarded. Instead, the Court advocated for a judicious examination, wherein elements of the testimony deemed reliable could still hold sway.
The Court’s reasoning, though meticulous, ultimately hinged upon corroboration. Through a thorough examination of the victim’s testimony, bolstered by Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statements and medical evidence, the Court found alignment. The convergence of these strands of evidence lent weight to the prosecutrix’s narrative, forming a robust foundation for conviction.
In the end, the Court’s verdict stood as a testament to the integrity of the legal process. It dismissed the appeal, underscoring the principle that conviction, once grounded in corroborated testimony, stands firm against the tumult of cross-examination.
The courtroom drama, Selvamani versus The State represented by the Inspector of Police, reached its denouement with the gavel’s decisive rap—a reminder that justice, fortified by scrutiny and corroboration, remains unyielding in the face of adversarial winds.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
