Offences Charged:

• Section 376(2)(g) and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act

An appeal against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appellants, including Accused No. 2, challenged the judgment of the trial court which had convicted them for offenses including gang rape and harassment of a woman.

The facts of the case involve an incident where the victim, a worker at a shoe company, was allegedly gang-raped by the accused persons. Despite some inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim and her family during cross-examination, their initial statements, the FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.

The defense argued that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's case. However, the court found that there was sufficient corroboration between the victim's initial statements and other evidence presented.

The court referenced legal precedents to emphasize that the testimony of hostile witnesses could still be relied upon if consistent with other evidence and if found dependable upon careful scrutiny. It also highlighted the importance of expeditious trial procedures to prevent witness tampering and ensure fairness to both the prosecution and defense.

In conclusion, the court upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court, dismissing the appeal against the conviction of Accused No. 2.

Pending Application(s): Any pending application(s) were disposed of accordingly.

1. The case revolves around the gang rape of the victim, a 22-year-old woman, by multiple accused persons, including the owner/manager of the company where she worked.
2. The incident occurred on 27th January 2006 near a railway bridge. The victim was forcibly taken to a secluded area and raped by the accused persons.
3. The victim reported the incident to the police, leading to the registration of an FIR and subsequent investigation.
4. Charges were framed against the accused under relevant sections of IPC and the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act.
5. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness testimonies, medical examination reports, and the victim's statement under Section 164 of CrPC.
6. The trial court convicted the accused persons based on the evidence presented and sentenced them to imprisonment.
7. The accused persons filed appeals challenging the trial court's judgment.
8. The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the trial court's decision.
9. The appellant contended that the victim and key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case during cross-examination.
10. Medical evidence was cited as not fully supporting the prosecution's version of events.
11. The court noted that although some witnesses turned hostile during cross-examination, their initial testimonies provided substantial corroboration to the prosecution's case.
12. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that the evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be entirely disregarded and must be carefully scrutinized.
13. The court highlighted the importance of considering the totality of evidence, including statements recorded under Section 164 of CrPC and medical examination reports.
14. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court.
15. The concluded that there was sufficient corroboration to support the prosecution's case, and the appellant's reliance on precedent was deemed inapplicable to the present circumstances.
16.  Appeal dismissed, pending application(s) disposed of.