Supreme Court on Hostile Victim Testimony: Conviction Cannot Be Sustained on FIR And Investigating Officer’s Evidence Alone.

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a doctor for rape under Section 376(2)(d) IPC, holding that when the victim and her husband turn hostile and do not support the prosecution case, conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the FIR, investigating officer’s testimony, or uncorroborated circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that presuming witnesses were “won over” without evidence is impermissible and that hostile testimony, unsupported by reliable medical or forensic corroboration, cannot form the basis of conviction.

• The appellant, a medical practitioner, was accused of committing rape on a patient during examination at his clinic in Himmatnagar, Gujarat on 08.05.2001.

• An FIR was lodged on the basis of the victim’s allegations. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 376(2)(d) IPC.

• The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to six years’ rigorous imprisonment.

• On appeal, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the accused’s appeal and enhanced the sentence to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment on the State’s appeal.

• Aggrieved, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

• The victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2), the most material witnesses, did not support the prosecution case during trial and were declared hostile.

• Courts must be slow to rely on testimony of hostile witnesses unless corroborated by reliable independent evidence.

• The High Court erred in presuming, without evidence, that the victim and her husband were “won over” by the accused.

• Conviction cannot be based on the FIR or statements recorded during investigation when the same are not proved through substantive evidence at trial.

• Panch witnesses to recovery of clothes turned hostile and stated that their signatures were obtained on prepared documents at the instance of police.

• Medical evidence did not support recent sexual intercourse; no injuries were found on the victim’s private parts and semen was not detected during medical examination.

• Non-examination of independent witnesses present at the clinic further weakened the prosecution case.

• The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals.

• The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were quashed and set aside.

• The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and bail bonds stood discharged.

• Section 376(2)(d), Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Rape by a person in a position of trust or authority.

• Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Examination of accused.

• Principles governing appreciation of evidence of hostile witnesses.

• Evidentiary value of FIR and investigation-stage statements.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1443

Case: Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Date of Decision: 16 December 2025

Criminal Appeal Nos.: 890–891 of 2017