SELVAMANIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                 [2024] 6 S.C.R. 653 : 2024 INSC 393

                            Selvamani
                                v.
             The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2023)
                                 08 May 2024
               [B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Appellant was one of the five accused persons who were found
       guilty of committing the offence of gang rape and was convicted
       under Section 376(g) and 506(1) of Penal Code, 1860 and Section
       4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act by the trial
       court. Whether High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal
       filed by the Appellant against the conviction when prosecutrix and
       witnesses turned hostile at the cross examination stage.

                                  Headnotes
       Conviction upheld even when prosecutrix and other witnesses
       turned hostile – Correctness of:
       Held: In the present case, the prosecutrix as well as her mother
       and her aunt have fully supported the prosecution case – FIR came
       to be lodged immediately on the very same day – The statement
       of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC was also recorded
       before the Judicial Magistrate, who has also deposed about the
       prosecutrix giving the statement and narrating the incident – The
       medical expert who had examined the victim has clearly stated that
       prosecutrix was having injuries on her person – No doubt that the
       prosecutrix and her mother and aunt in their cross-examination,
       which was recorded three and a half months after the recording
       of the examination-in-chief, have turned around and not supported
       the prosecution case – In the present case, it appears that, on
       account of a long gap between the examination-in-chief and cross
       examination, the witnesses were won over by the accused and
       they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination-in-
       chief which fully incriminates the accused – However, when the
       evidence of the victim as well as her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-
       3) is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under Section
       164 CrPC and the evidence of the Medical Expert (PW-8), there
       is sufficient corroboration to the version given by the prosecutrix
* Author
654                                                             [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       in her examination-in-chief – Reliance is placed on the judgment
       in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC
       220, and Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh
       (2022) 12 SCC 200. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13]
       Evidence of hostile witness – Reliance upon:
       Held: A 3 judge bench of this Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra
       Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 627, relying on
       the judgments of this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State
       of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389, Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State
       of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka
       (1980) 1 SCC 30, has held that the evidence of a prosecution witness
       cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose
       to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him – The same can
       be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable
       on a careful scrutiny thereof – The evidence of a hostile witness
       cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which
       are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence
       (C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC
       567) – The case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of
       Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 relied upon by the learned counsel for
       Appellant can be distinguished, inasmuch as in the said case except
       a minor abrasion on the right side of the neck below jaw, there were
       no other injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix, although it
       was allegedly a forcible gang rape – As such, the said judgment
       would not be applicable in the present case. [Paras 9, 10 and 14]

                                Case Law Cited
            Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh
            [1991] 3 SCR 1 : (1991) 3 SCC 627; Bhagwan Singh
            v. State of Haryana [1976] 2 SCR 921 : (1976) 1 SCC
            389; Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa [1977]
            1 SCR 439 : (1976) 4 SCC 233; Syad Akbar v. State
            of Karnataka [1980] 1 SCR 95 : (1980) 1 SCC 30; C.
            Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010] 10
            SCR 262 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; Vinod Kumar v. State of
            Punjab [2015] 1 SCR 504 : (2015) 3 SCC 220; Rajesh
            Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022] 16
            SCR 967 : (2022) 12 SCC 200 – relied on.
            Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2012]
            6 SCR 1153 : (2012) 8 SCC 21 – distinguished.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                        655

           Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police


                                           List of Acts
      Penal Code, 1860; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman
      Act; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                                      List of Keywords
      Gang rape; Hostile witnesses; Evidence; Cross examination;
      Long gap between examination-in-chief and cross examination;
      Corroboration.

                                     Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 906
      of 2023
      From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2019 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 840 of 2012
                                 Appearances for Parties
      Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Ms. G. Priytadarshini, Satyam Pathak, Dr.
      Ratneshwar Chakma, Advs. for the Appellant.
      V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., D. Kumanan, Mrs. Deepa. S, Sheikh
      F. Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Advs. for the
      Respondent.
                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                           Judgment
      B.R. Gavai, J.
1.    This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 27th
      August 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
      of Judicature at Madras1, whereby vide a common judgment, the
      High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos. 449 and 840 of 2012.
      The present Appellant, who is Accused No. 2, had filed the Criminal
      Appeal No. 840 of 2012, along with Accused Nos. 3 and 4, under
      Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 19732, challenging the
      judgment and order dated 26th June 2012, passed by the learned
      Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. III, Thirupathur,


1    Hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”.
2    Hereinafter referred to as, “CrPC”.
656                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                              Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Vellore District3, in Sessions Case No. 277 of 2010, whereby the
       trial court had convicted and sentenced the accused persons for
       offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and 506(1) of Indian
       Penal Code, 18604, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
       Harassment of Woman Act.
2.     The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as given below:
       2.1 On 28 th January 2006, Police Station Vaniyampadi Town
           received a written information from the victim (PW-1), to the
           effect that she had been gang raped. On the basis of the said
           written information, Police Station Vaniyampadi Town registered
           a First Information Report (FIR), vide P.S. Crime No. 115 of
           2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376
           and 506(2) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition
           of Harassment of Woman Act. On registration of the FIR, Shri
           Loganthan, Inspector of Police, Vanianpadi Town Police Station
           (PW-13) (I.O.) visited the place of occurrence and prepared
           observation Mahazar and sketch. He recorded the statement
           of witnesses. The accused persons were arrested. The medical
           officer examined the victim and her statement was recorded
           under Section 164 CrPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupattur.
       2.2 The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the victim was
           working at Emerald Shoe Company, Vaniyampadi for three
           years leading upto the day of the incident. On the day of the
           incident, i.e., 27th January 2006, at about 7 PM, when the victim,
           aged 22 years, was returning to her house, after completing
           her work, the Accused No. 1 who was the Manager/Owner of
           the said Company came to her and told her that he wanted to
           talk to her about certain matter and so he took her to a place
           near the Railway Bridge, where already the other four persons
           (Accused Nos. 2 to 5) were standing, who then forcibly dragged
           her to a secluded place and threatened to throw her on the
           railway track if she shouted. They then stripped her. The victim
           cried for help, upon which she was threatened with a knife. The
           accused persons committed gang rape on her. Accused No. 1
           assaulted the victim as well. The act continued till 3:30 AM, the


3    Hereinafter referred to as, “trial court”.
4    Hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                        657

        Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police


           next morning, when she escaped and came back to her house.
           On her return, she informed her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-
           3) and later during the same day, she got the FIR registered.
     2.3 At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came
         to be filed by the I.O. in the Court of Vanianpadi Judicial
         Magistrate. Since the offence charged against the accused
         persons was triable only by the Court of Sessions, the case
         was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions
         Judge, Vellore, and the same was made over to the learned
         trial court, for disposal.
     2.4 Charges were framed by the trial court under Sections 376(2)
         (g) and 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition
         of Harassment of Woman Act.
     2.5 The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
         tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
         examined fourteen (14) witnesses, twenty-five (25) exhibits
         were marked along with two (2) material objects. The defence
         of the accused was that they had been falsely implicated. At the
         conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that the prosecution
         had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the
         accused persons and so convicted them under Section 376(2)
         (g) and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
         Harassment of Woman Act and sentenced each accused person
         to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for
         the offence committed under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, 1-year
         rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence
         committed under Section 506(1) IPC and 1-year imprisonment
         for the offence committed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
         Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, in default of payment
         of fine they were to undergo 3-months simple imprisonment.
         The sentence was to run concurrently and the period already
         undergone was to be set-off. Since the Accused No. 5 had died
         during the trial, the case against him stood abated.
     2.6 Being aggrieved thereby, the accused persons preferred appeal
         against the final judgment and order of the trial court. There
         were two appeals before the High Court. Accused No. 1 filed
         Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 2012 and the Accused Nos. 2 to 4
         filed Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2012. Vide impugned judgment,
658                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


             the High Court dismissed both the criminal appeals and upheld
             the findings of the trial court.
       2.7 Aggrieved as a result, the present appeal has been filed only
           on behalf of Accused No. 2.
3.     We have heard Shri Rahul Shyam Bhandari, learned counsel
       appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri V. Krishnamurthy,
       learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
       the State of Tamil Nadu.
4.     Shri Rahul Shyam Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the
       appellant, submits that the High Court has grossly erred in dismissing
       the appeal filed by the appellant herein. It is submitted that the victim
       (PW-1) as well as her mother-Jaya (PW-2) and her aunt-Jamuna (PW-
       3) have not supported the prosecution case in their cross examination.
       Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the medical
       evidence also does not support the evidence of the prosecution.
       Learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment of this
       Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of
       Delhi)5, submits that when the evidence of the prosecutrix and
       the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case, the
       conviction could not be sustainable.
5.     In the present case, the prosecutrix as well as her mother-Jaya (PW-
       2) and her aunt-Jamuna (PW-3) have fully supported the prosecution
       case. The examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix would reveal that she
       has stated that when she was returning to her house, the Accused
       No.1, who is the owner of the company in which she works, came
       and asked her to come with him for giving details of some official
       work. Accused No.1 took the victim, where four accused persons were
       standing and then Accused No.1 asked the prosecutrix to remove
       her clothes and when she refused, her clothes were removed by
       the other accused and thereafter they ravished her. The evidence
       would also show that though she informed that she was at pains,
       they committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one on
       various occasions. She has stated that, when the accused persons
       left at around 3 o’clock in the morning, she went home and narrated
       the version to her mother and relatives. PW-2 and PW-3, mother


5    [2012] 6 SCR 1153 : (2012) 8 SCC 21 : 2012 INSC 322
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                        659

           Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police


      and aunt of the prosecutrix respectively, have also stated in their
      evidence that when the prosecutrix came home, she narrated the
      incident to them. The FIR came to be lodged immediately on the
      very same day.
6.    The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC was also
      recorded before Smt. Lakshmi Ramesh, Judicial Magistrate (PW-6).
      PW-6 has also deposed about the prosecutrix, giving the statement
      and narrating the entire incident.
7.    Dr. Indrani, Medical Expert (PW.8), who had examined the victim,
      has clearly stated that the prosecutrix was having injuries on her
      person. Her evidence establishes the fact that there was forcible
      sexual intercourse several times by several persons. Her evidence
      also shows that on account of the said incident, the victim lost her
      virginity and there were also abrasions on the private parts of the
      victim.
8.    No doubt that the prosecutrix and her mother and aunt in their cross-
      examination, which was recorded three and a half months after the
      recording of the examination-in-chief, have turned around and not
      supported the prosecution case.
9.    A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra
      Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, relying on the judgments of
      this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana7,
      Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa8, Syad Akbar v. State
      of Karnataka9, has held that the evidence of a prosecution witness
      cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to
      treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. It was further held that
      the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed
      off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent
      their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
10. This Court, in the case of C. Muniappan and Others v. State of
    Tamil Nadu10, has observed thus:


6    [1991] 3 SCR 1 : (1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 INSC 153
7    [1976] 2 SCR 921 : (1976) 1 SCC 389 : 1975 INSC 306
8    [1977] 1 SCR 439 : (1976) 4 SCC 233 : 1976 INSC 204
9    [1980] 1 SCR 95 : (1980) 1 SCC 30 : 1979 INSC 126
10   [2010] 10 SCR 262 : (2010) 9 SCC 567 : 2010 INSC 553
660                                                     [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       “81. It is settled legal proposition that : (Khujji case, SCC
       p. 635, para 6)
            ‘6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness
            cannot be rejected in toto merely because the
            prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and
            cross-examined him. The evidence of such
            witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or
            washed off the record altogether but the same
            can be accepted to the extent their version is
            found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny
            thereof.’
       82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10
       SCC 360] this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7)
       evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected
       if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but
       required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion
       of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the
       prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view
       has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v.
       State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543], Gagan Kanojia
       v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516], Radha Mohan
       Singh v. State of U.P.,(2006) 2 SCC 450], Sarvesh Narain
       Shukla v. Daroga Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 360] and Subbu
       Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462.
       83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that
       the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as
       a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible
       in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
       84. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses
       i.e. B. Kamal (PW 86) and R. Maruthu (PW 51) turned
       hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration
       by the courts below strictly in accordance with law. Some
       omissions, improvements in the evidence of the PWs have
       been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants,
       but we find them to be very trivial in nature.
       85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are
       some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the
       entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                              661

           Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police


             care and caution and sifting through the evidence
             to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and
             improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to
             whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict
             the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be
             attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
             which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake
             the basic version of the prosecution’s witness. As the
             mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to
             be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor
             discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of
             witnesses. Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC
             751, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505,
             Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983)
             3 SCC 217, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007)
             12 SCC 381, Prithu v. State of H.P., (2009) 11 SCC 588,
             State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626 and
             State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587”
11. In the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab11, this Court has
    observed thus:
             “51. It is necessary, though painful, to note that PW 7 was
             examined-in-chief on 30-9-1999 and was cross-examined
             on 25-5-2001, almost after 1 year and 8 months. The
             delay in said cross-examination, as we have stated earlier
             had given enough time for prevarication due to many a
             reason. A fair trial is to be fair both to the defence and the
             prosecution as well as to the victim. An offence registered
             under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be tried with
             all seriousness. We fail to appreciate how the learned trial
             Judge could exhibit such laxity in granting so much time for
             cross-examination in a case of this nature. It would have
             been absolutely appropriate on the part of the learned
             trial Judge to finish the cross-examination on the day the
             said witness was examined. As is evident, for no reason
             whatsoever it was deferred and the cross-examination
             took place after 20 months. The witness had all the time



11   [2015] 1 SCR 504 : (2015) 3 SCC 220 : 2014 INSC 670
662                                                        [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


       in the world to be gained over. We have already opined
       that he was declared hostile and re-examined.
       52. It is settled in law that the testimony of a hostile witness
       can be relied upon by the prosecution as well as the
       defence. In re-examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW
       7 has accepted about the correctness of his statement in
       the court on 13-9-1999. He has also accepted that he had
       not made any complaint to the Presiding Officer of the court
       in writing or verbally that the Inspector was threatening
       him to make a false statement in the court. It has also
       been accepted by him that he had given the statement
       in the court on account of fear of false implication by the
       Inspector. He has agreed to have signed his statement
       dated 13-9-1999 after going through and admitting it to
       be correct. It has come in the re-examination that PW 7
       had not stated in his statement dated 13-9-1999 in the
       court that recovery of tainted money was not effected in
       his presence from the accused or that he had been told
       by the Inspector that amount has been recovered from the
       accused. He had also not stated in his said statement that
       the accused and witnesses were taken to the Tehsil and
       it was there that he had signed all the memos.
       53. Reading the evidence in entirety, PW 7’s evidence
       cannot be brushed aside. The delay in cross-examination
       has resulted in his prevarication from the examination-in-
       chief. But, a significant one, his examination-in-chief and
       the re-examination impels us to accept the testimony that
       he had gone into the octroi post and had witnessed about
       the demand and acceptance of money by the accused.
       In his cross-examination he has stated that he had not
       gone with Baj Singh to the Vigilance Department at any
       time and no recovery was made in his presence. The said
       part of the testimony, in our considered view, does not
       commend acceptance in the backdrop of entire evidence
       in examination-in-chief and the re-examination.
                   xxx                xxx               xxx
       57. Before parting with the case we are constrained to
       reiterate what we have said in the beginning. We have
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                              663

        Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police


           expressed our agony and anguish for the manner in which
           trials in respect of serious offences relating to corruption
           are being conducted by the trial courts:
           57.1. Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by
           the counsel, even though the witness is present in court,
           contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after
           the examination-in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment
           is sought for cross-examination and the disquieting feature
           is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires special
           reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is
           not taken note of.
           57.2. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the
           cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8
           months allowing ample time to pressurise the witness and
           to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics.
           57.3. There is no cavil over the proposition that there
           has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court
           while conducting the trial is to be guided by the mandate
           of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing
           in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the
           basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for
           his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it
           cannot be countenanced. The court has a sacred duty to
           see that the trial is conducted as per law. If adjournments
           are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation
           of the rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a
           farce. It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially
           abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to follow
           the command of the procedure relating to trial and not
           yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment
           for non-acceptable reasons.
           57.4. In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a witness
           for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is
           imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-
           examination should be completed on the same day. If the
           examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial
           can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It
           is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should
664                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


             be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the
             concept of proper and fair trial.
             57.5. The duty of the court is to see that not only the
             interest of the accused as per law is protected but also
             the societal and collective interest is safeguarded. It is
             distressing to note that despite series of judgments of this
             Court, the habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment,
             continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There
             is a constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate
             that the copies of the judgment be sent to the learned
             Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the
             same among the learned trial Judges with a command to
             follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner
             and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness at
             their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel,
             for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and
             compels the whole society to suffer chicanery. Let it be
             remembered that law cannot be allowed to be lonely; a
             destitute.”
12. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, this Court has taken a similar
    view in the case of Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar
    Pradesh12.
13. In the present case also, it appears that, on account of a long
    gap between the examination-in-chief and cross examination, the
    witnesses were won over by the accused and they resiled from the
    version as deposed in the examination-in-chief which fully incriminates
    the accused. However, when the evidence of the victim as well
    as her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-3) is tested with the FIR, the
    statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the evidence of the
    Medical Expert (PW-8), we find that there is sufficient corroboration
    to the version given by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief.
14. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant
    on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu
    (supra) is concerned, the said case can be distinguished, inasmuch
    as in the said case except a minor abrasion on the right side of the


12   [2022] 16 SCR 967 : (2022) 12 SCC 200 : 2022 INSC 148
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                       665

        Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police


     neck below jaw, there were no other injuries on the private part of
     the prosecutrix, although it was allegedly a forcible gang rape. As
     such, the said judgment would not be applicable in the present case.
15. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent
    findings of fact recorded by the trial court as well as the High Court
    on appreciation of the evidence.
16. The appeal is dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


     Headnotes prepared by:                             Result of the case:
     Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor             Appeal dismissed.
     (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)