MOHANLAL GANGARAM GEHANI vs STATE OF MAHARASTRA

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in altering the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC, emphasizing that discrepancies in the name of the assailant recorded by the doctor were not sufficient to discredit her testimony. The Court clarified that Section 145 of the Evidence Act applies only to contradictory statements made by the same person, and the prosecution's failure to cross-examine the doctor undermined the High Court's findings. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the conviction under Section 326 IPC with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years.