The Supreme Court, which announced its verdict in the December 16, 2012, gang-rape on Friday, has recognised the consistent stand taken by Nirbhaya’s companion, who was also the sole eyewitness in the case.
A credible witness
A three-judge Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra rejected the defence’s claims of his statement being inconsistent. The court concluded that inconsistencies, if any, did not affect his credibility as the prosecution’s star witness.
According to Justice Misra, “a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape”.
The court also found that the injuries Nirbhaya’s friend had suffered after being beaten with an iron rod, stripped and thrown out of the bus, lent assurance to his testimony that he was with the victim at the time of the incident.
“The evidence of an injured witness is entitled to a greater weight, and the testimony of such a witness is considered to be beyond reproach. Firm, cogent and convincing ground is required to discard the evidence of an injured witness,” Justice Misra held.
‘He was pinned down’
About claims that Nirbhaya’s friend did not do enough to protect her, the court said the couple were attacked by at least six persons.
“He was pinned down by two assailants while the others raped the prosecutrix. The accused persons were in a group and were armed with iron rods. It would not have been possible for him to resist the number of accused persons and save the prosecutrix. His evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that he had not interfered with the occurrence,” the court observed.
The Bench, which found no justification or warrant to treat his version as inconsistent, heaped accolades on him for being so steadfast. “Consistency is writ large and the witness, as we perceive, is credible,” the Bench said.
The court also noted how there was a tendency to acquit an accused easily. “This tendency is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each case,” Justice Misra said.
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish, and guilty men cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes,” the Bench held.
