The Supreme Court of India recently upheld the acquittal of two rape accused, emphasizing the critical role of consistent victim testimony in securing a conviction.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling that highlights the importance of consistency and clarity in victim testimony, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquittal of two men accused in a 2012 rape case. The apex court found material contradictions in the statements made by the prosecutrix, particularly regarding the date of the alleged incident, and held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The case, which originated in Himachal Pradesh, involved two accused — Sanjay Kumar and Chaman Shukla. Sanjay Kumar had initially been convicted by a trial court under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction), 376 (rape), and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Chaman Shukla was convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly helping to conceal evidence. However, both were later acquitted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court — a decision that was challenged by the State in the Supreme Court.
The factual matrix begins with a religious event — a katha — being held at a temple in Sohra Buins, where the prosecutrix, a minor aged around 14, had gone with her family. During the event, her sister asked her to take her toddler to sleep in a room nearby. When the prosecutrix did not return for a long time, a family member went to check and found the child sleeping but the girl missing.
Suspicion fell on Sanjay Kumar, and an FIR was promptly filed alleging that he had kidnapped the prosecutrix. The next day, Chaman Shukla took the girl to the local police station, claiming he had found her walking alone on the road at Narkanda and had brought her to his home out of concern.
Investigation and Trial
During the investigation, it was alleged that Sanjay Kumar had kidnapped the prosecutrix and taken her to the home of one Jawala Devi (PW-6), where he had sexual intercourse with her. Based on this, he was charged with rape and related offenses. Chaman Shukla, meanwhile, was accused of helping to conceal the offense.
At trial, the court found Sanjay Kumar guilty of rape and abduction, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and imposing a fine of ₹20,000. Chaman Shukla was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment for his alleged role.
ALSO READ: Centre Informs Supreme Court: “No Full or Partial Stay on New Waqf Laws”
High Court Reversal and Supreme Court Review
Upon appeal, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed the conviction, citing inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s account. The State challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, which examined the evidence afresh.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra meticulously analyzed the trial record and upheld the High Court’s acquittal.
The Court highlighted a critical inconsistency: the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), had claimed that the rape took place on the night of March 31, 2012, while she was at Chaman Shukla’s residence. However, during her testimony in court, she stated that the rape occurred on the night of March 30, 2012, when she was at the house of PW-6, Jawala Devi — with Sanjay Kumar.
This inconsistency was deemed “material” by the Bench and cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of the prosecutrix’s allegations. Moreover, the prosecutrix had not informed anyone — including villagers, her parents, or even Chaman Shukla — about the alleged rape, raising further questions about the credibility of her version of events.
DNA Evidence and Gaps in Prosecution
The Supreme Court also noted that
no DNA analysis had been conducted on the semen found on the prosecutrix’s undergarments.
Though medical evidence did not rule out the possibility of sexual intercourse,
the Bench observed that this
“alone could not suffice to establish the accused’s guilt, particularly when the identity of the perpetrator remained uncertain“
Significantly, no direct accusation of rape was ever made against Chaman Shukla, either in the FIR or during the trial, and the prosecutrix herself had not alleged that he was aware of or complicit in the alleged sexual assault.
The High Court had taken note of these evidentiary deficiencies and held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt — a conclusion the Supreme Court found to be a
“plausible view.”
The apex court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s obligation to ensure that convictions in criminal cases rest on solid, unambiguous evidence. In sensitive cases like rape, the testimony of the prosecutrix is crucial and often forms the backbone of the prosecution’s case. However, even such testimony must withstand judicial scrutiny in terms of consistency and credibility.
Reiterating the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence — that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, effectively closing the case.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 561
Advocates:
For Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh):
AOR Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, along with Advocates Yash Jain, Saurabh Pandey, Ravi Bakshi, S. Gowthaman, Manvendra Pratap Singh, Selvam P., and Sameer Aslam.
For Respondents (Accused Persons):
Advocate Sumesh Dhawan, AOR Priya Puri, along with Advocates Ankita Bajpai, Kholi Rakuzhuro, Raghav Dembla, Vatsal Kak, Sharad Kumar Puri, and Ritim Mangla.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
