The Supreme Court restored the rape conviction of a man accused of sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl, ruling that minor contradictions cannot override credible testimony and medical evidence. The Court also strongly criticised the disclosure of the victim’s identity and called it a serious lapse.
The Supreme Court of India has set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had acquitted a man accused of sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl, holding that the High Court had wrongly analysed the evidence and ignored important facts.
The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and made it clear that minor inconsistencies in the prosecution story cannot be a reason to reject the clear and reliable testimony of a child victim, especially when medical evidence supports the case.
ALSO READ:Thane Rickshaw Driver Acquitted in POCSO Case Over Schoolgirl Modesty Allegation
The case goes back to August 27, 2007. On that day, a nine-year-old girl was sent by her mother in the morning to bring buttermilk. While returning home, the accused, who was the son of their neighbour, allegedly lured the child into a cowshed and sexually assaulted her.
After the incident, the child told her mother about what had happened, and later informed her father, who worked as a mason, when he returned home. The next day, an FIR was registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In September 2008, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, he was acquitted under Section 201 IPC. The Trial Court relied on the testimony of the child victim and the medical evidence, which showed paraurethral lacerations and a torn hymen, clearly indicating sexual assault.
In June 2014, the Himachal Pradesh High Court overturned the conviction and acquitted the accused. The High Court found the prosecution story doubtful and said it was “improbable” that a nine-year-old girl could travel a total distance of 16 kilometres within two hours to bring buttermilk.
The High Court also noted that there was an acrimonious relationship between the families and pointed out some contradictions in the statements of the victim’s parents and maternal uncle regarding when the incident was reported.
The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged this acquittal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was right in reversing the Trial Court’s conviction and carefully analysed the evidence and reasoning given by the High Court.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Closes POCSO Case Against BrijBhushan Sharan Singh, Cites Lack of Evidence
The Supreme Court discussed the legal principles related to child witnesses and said that the testimony of a child victim should be carefully evaluated but should not be rejected only because of small contradictions. Referring to legal principles, the Court stated that corroboration is not always required if the testimony is trustworthy.
The Court quoted:
“Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix.”
The Court then dealt with the issue of inconsistencies and the High Court’s focus on the 16-kilometre distance. The Supreme Court said that human memory and observation cannot be perfect and small variations are natural. The Court explained that such minor issues should not destroy an otherwise strong case.
The Court quoted:
“Variations in trivial matters that do not affect the core of the case should not lead to rejection of credible testimony in its entirety… In proving the occurrence of an offence within a particular time frame, the Court does not look for mathematical precision.”
The Supreme Court also examined the medical evidence and said that the medical report clearly supported the version given by the child victim and confirmed that sexual assault had taken place. The Court held that the High Court made a serious mistake by ignoring strong medical and ocular evidence and focusing only on an alleged improbability in the timeline.
The Supreme Court also expressed serious concern that the identity of the child victim had been disclosed in court records, which is not allowed under Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court strongly criticised this and said that the purpose of the law protecting the identity of rape victims was not followed in this case.
The Court observed:
“The intent of this Section has been given a miss in these proceedings. The name of the victim is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record. This must be deprecated in the strongest terms.”
The Court further said that such disclosure shows a lack of sensitivity and awareness about the social stigma faced by victims of sexual offences and noted that there was general indifference by the courts below in protecting the identity of the victim.
After considering all the evidence and legal principles, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The Court directed the accused to surrender immediately and serve the remaining sentence.
The case is titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand alias Monu, Criminal Appeal No. 1275 of 2015, and the judgment was delivered on March 24, 2026, by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
This judgment is important because it reiterates that minor inconsistencies cannot override credible testimony of a child victim and that courts must handle such cases with sensitivity, especially regarding the identity and dignity of the victim.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Victim Case
