Surendra Nath Das vs Emperor on 28 August, 1933
4. Now the report in Surendra Das v. Emperor makes it plain that both the learned Judges were satisfied that the prosecutrix was an unreliable witness. Lort-Williams J. in his judgment, pointed this out at some length, and summed up by saying that, in view of these facts, it is clear that the utmost care must be taken by the Judge and jury before convicting. Henderson, J. said that in so far as the ease for the prosecutrix was that she had been forcibly raped, that case was contradicted by the medical evidence, and such portions of her story as are capable of being tested aliunde were found to be untrue also. The Judge in the Court below apparently did not advert to this aspect of the case and did not warn the jury as to the necessity for corroboration. The conclusion arrived. at by the Appellate Court was that from the facts stated, there was no proper direction in the case, on material points. The proposition of law laid down was that the jury should be warned that it is unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix, but that they might still do so, if satisfied that she was telling the truth. The case is not, in my opinion, an authority for the head note, which states that where no such warning is given, the conviction must be set aside.