Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3—Oral evidence—Reliability of—Oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) wholly reliable; (ii) wholly unreliable; (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable—First two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s)—However, in the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
[Para 11]
Section 3—Evidence of victim—Reliability of—Where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident—Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but quality and credibility must be exceptionally high—Statement of prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case—While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.
[Para 15]
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Section 12—Sexual harassment—Testimony of victim—When considering evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident—If any doubt arises in the court's mind regarding the veracity of victim's version, the court may, at its discretion, seek corroboration from other witnesses who directly observed the incident or from other attending circumstances to unearth the truth.
[Paras 17 & 18]
Section 12—Sexual harassment by teacher—Conviction—Alleged sexual harassment transpired in a classroom—For corroboration of the victim’s version, her classmate was brought in as a witness—Although declared hostile, a part of her testimony supports the allegation levelled by the victim, indicating that act of giving a flower became a topic of conversation among other students in the class—However, the other part of the prosecution's narrative, specifically that first accused gave flowers and chocolate to the victim, lacked support in her testimony—Prosecution made little effort or no effort to have the truth spoken to by Head master of the school—If any untoward incident relating to a girl student of his school had taken place, it was Head master of the school who as the head of the institution would have been aware and as a priest would have disclosed—Conviction undoubtedly can be recorded on the sole evidence of a victim of crime; however, it must undergo a strict scrutiny through the well- settled legal principles as established by the Apex Court—While the actions attributed to first accused, as sought to be demonstrated by prosecution, may fall within the purview of 'sexual harassment' under Section 11 of the Act, the evidence in this case has been marred by inadequacies from the outset, evident in contradictions within statements and testimonies—Evidence led leaves reasonable suspicion as to whether first accused was actually involved in any criminal act—Nature of overt act attributed to second accused, the case against him does not justify a conviction under Section 506 of IPC—Circumstances on which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn was not fully established—Conviction set aside.
[Paras 19 to 28]
Section 12—Sexual harassment by teacher—An act of sexual harassment of a girl student (who is also a minor) by any teacher would figure quite high in the list of offences of grave nature since it has far-reaching consequences, which impact more than just the parties to the proceeding—At the same time, it is axiomatic that reputation is earned by a teacher upon rendering service over the years and an accusation like the present would remain as an indelible mark marring his entire future life—Care has, therefore, to be taken so that his right to live a life of dignity and personal liberty are not put to jeopardy on the basis of half-baked evidence.
[Para 26]