New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has held that when the main witness in a prosecution, including the victim herself, does not support the case, courts cannot presume that she failed to support the prosecution because the accused had “won over” the witness. The Court emphasized that a conviction cannot be based merely on allegations in the FIR unless they are proved during trial through cogent evidence.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the decision on December 16, 2025, while allowing criminal appeals filed by Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel, challenging his conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The appellant was a doctor practising at Himmatnagar, Gujarat. According to the prosecution case, the victim used to visit him for treatment of stomach pain. On May 8, 2001, the victim, along with her husband, went to the appellant’s dispensary in the morning. The victim was taken into the chamber by the appellant for examination, first for screening and then to the operation room, where it was alleged that, under the guise of examination, the appellant fondled her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse, leaving scratches and bruises on her neck as she resisted. The victim allegedly came out of the room and immediately narrated the incident to her husband while weeping.
An FIR was lodged on the basis of these allegations. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed a chargesheet against the appellant. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, where the prosecution examined nine witnesses and produced various documentary evidence.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(d) IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six years. The appellant preferred an appeal against the conviction, while the State also filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence, as the Trial Court had awarded a punishment less than the minimum prescribed.
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and allowed the State’s appeal, enhancing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The High Court held that although the victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) had not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile, the conviction could still be sustained on the basis of other oral evidence led by the prosecution. The High Court presumed that the victim and her husband had been “won over” by the appellant.
Challenging this decision before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the prosecution case was based on direct evidence, which collapsed when PW-1 and PW-2 turned hostile, yet the High Court erroneously converted it into a case of circumstantial evidence. It was argued that a conviction can never be based on the FIR or statements recorded during investigation, and that the Investigating Officer cannot indirectly prove what witnesses themselves failed to establish.
The appellant further pointed out that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. All independent witnesses, including witnesses to the recovery panchnama, turned hostile and stated that their signatures were taken on written papers at the instance of the police and that they were unaware of the contents of the panchnama. Additionally, three independent witnesses who were allegedly present in the clinic, though cited as material witnesses in the chargesheet, were not examined by the prosecution.
The State opposed the appeals, arguing that serious allegations had been levelled against the appellant and that the victim had initially deposed about visiting the clinic and undergoing treatment. The State claimed that the witnesses were later won over and that a compromise agreement had been placed before the Trial Court. It relied on medical evidence, including the doctor’s testimony regarding scratch marks on the victim’s neck, and the presence of semen stains on the victim’s petticoat and the appellant’s clothes, with the blood group matching that of the appellant.
Upon examining the evidence, the Supreme Court noted that during her examination-in-chief, the victim deposed about visiting the hospital with her husband, being called inside for screening, and being taken to the operation room. However, after a recess was sought due to her ill health, she did not support the prosecution when the examination resumed and was declared hostile. Similarly, PW-2, the husband, also turned hostile.
Relying on its earlier decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani (2003) 7 SCC 291 and Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439, the Court reiterated that where a witness has been declared hostile, courts should be slow to act upon such testimony, and that evidence must be read as a whole to determine whether it carries any probative value.
The Court found that the High Court had primarily relied on alleged recovery of semen-stained clothes and matching blood groups. However, the panch witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) categorically stated that their signatures were obtained at the instance of the police and that they were unaware of the contents of the panchnamas. Consequently, reliance on such recoveries and FSL reports was held to be erroneous.
The Supreme Court also examined the medical evidence. PW-6, who examined the appellant, stated that semen samples could not be obtained and that no definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse could be given. PW-7, who examined the victim, stated that except for abrasions on the neck, there were no injuries on the victim’s body or private parts, and no signs of recent sexual intercourse were found.
The Court held that when the victim herself does not support the prosecution, it is impermissible for courts to presume that she was won over by the accused. The lack of support from the victim and her husband, coupled with inconclusive medical evidence and non-examination of independent witnesses, rendered the prosecution case doubtful.
Observing that allegations in an FIR cannot by themselves form the basis of conviction unless proved during trial through cogent evidence, the Supreme Court held that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred in recording the conviction. The prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. The judgment dated February 3, 2003, passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2001, and the common judgment dated November 28/29, 2016, passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 151 and 501 of 2003, were set aside. The appellant was acquitted, and his bail bonds were discharged.
Case Title: Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal Nos. 890–891 of 2017
