The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of a man for kidnapping and raping a 15-year-old girl in Himachal Pradesh. The court reaffirms that a minor’s consent is legally irrelevant in such cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by a convict, thereby upholding the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to convict him for the kidnapping, rape, and unnatural sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl. The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vipul M. Pancholi reaffirmed that the victim’s consent was immaterial due to her minor age and described the High Court’s decision as the “only possible view” based on the evidence.
ALSO READ: Shocking Attack in Court: Shoes Hurled at Sessions Judge After 28-Year-Old Case Verdict
Background of the Case
The case began with FIR No. 88, registered on February 28, 2007, at Police Station Sadar in Hamirpur, following a complaint by the victim’s uncle. Initially, the accused was charged under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (abduction to compel marriage or sexual acts) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later, additional charges under Sections 376 (rape) and 377 (unnatural offences) were added. A co-accused faced charges under Sections 212 and 368.
After the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet, and the prosecution presented 23 witnesses. On December 5, 2007, the Sessions Judge of Hamirpur acquitted both accused. The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged this acquittal in the High Court, which, in a judgment dated March 18, 2015, partially allowed the appeal. The High Court overturned the trial court’s acquittal of the main accused, convicting him under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, sentencing him to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. The co-accused’s acquittal was confirmed.
ALSO READ: Zubeen Garg Death Case: Court Sends 5 Accused to Jail For 14 Days
Arguments Presented
Defense:
The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing contradictions in witness statements and insufficient medical evidence. They contended that the victim’s testimony alone could not establish guilt and that the trial court’s acquittal was a reasonable view that should not have been overturned.
Prosecution:
The State emphasized that the victim was 15 years old at the time, making her consent legally irrelevant. They highlighted the victim’s detailed testimony and medical evidence from two doctors, which corroborated the occurrence of sexual assault. The state argued that the victim was a “sterling witness” and her testimony alone sufficed for conviction.
ALSO READ: Gaurav Bhatia’s Defamation Case: Delhi High Court Allows Summons via Email and Platform x
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment. Key observations included:
- The victim’s age of 15 years was undisputed, making consent legally immaterial.
- The victim’s testimony was specific, consistent, and credible, qualifying her as a “sterling witness.”
- Medical evidence did not contradict the victim’s account. One doctor confirmed the possibility of sexual intercourse, and another stated that sodomy could not be ruled out.
- Even assuming the victim had voluntarily engaged, her minor status rendered consent irrelevant.
The Court concluded that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused and reaffirmed that the High Court’s judgment was the “only possible view” based on the evidence.
Case Title:
VARUN KUMAR ALIAS SONU Versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2018
READ JUDGMENT