The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by a convict, upholding the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to convict him for the kidnapping, rape, and unnatural sex with a 15-year-old girl. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vipul M. Pancholi held that the consent of the victim was immaterial as she was a minor at the time of the incident and affirmed that the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s acquittal was the “only possible view” based on the evidence.
Background of the Case
The case originated with a First Information Report (FIR No. 88) registered on February 28, 2007, at Police Station Sadar (Hamirpur) based on a complaint by the victim’s uncle. The initial charges were under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the investigation, charges under Sections 376 (rape) and 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC were added against the appellant. Another individual was charged as a co-accused under Sections 212 and 368 of the IPC.
Following the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet. The prosecution presented 23 witnesses to support its case. However, on December 5, 2007, the Sessions Judge of Hamirpur acquitted both accused persons.
The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged this acquittal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. In a judgment dated March 18, 2015, the High Court partly allowed the state’s appeal. It overturned the trial court’s acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 of the IPC. The High Court sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. The acquittal of the co-accused was confirmed. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court erred in convicting him as the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense highlighted what it termed “major discrepancies and contradictions” in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It was contended that the medical evidence did not support the victim’s testimony and that in a case of conflict between medical and ocular evidence, the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused. The appellant’s counsel further submitted that the victim could not be considered a “sterling witness” and that the trial court’s decision to acquit was a “possible view” which the High Court should not have overturned.
Opposing the appeal, counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh argued that the High Court had correctly re-appreciated the evidence. The state emphasized that the victim’s age of 15 years at the time of the incident was an undisputed fact. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of the victim (PW-4), who had fully supported the prosecution’s case and narrated the incident in detail. The state’s counsel also pointed to the medical evidence from two doctors (PW-1 and PW-2). According to the judgment, PW-1 opined that the victim “may have undergone sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time of examination” and that there was “nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place.” Similarly, PW-2 stated that while there was “no evidence of anal intercourse,” the “possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out.” The state concluded that the victim was a “sterling witness” whose testimony alone was sufficient for a conviction.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
After examining the evidence and arguments, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment. The Court noted that the victim’s age of 15 years was not disputed by the appellant.
The bench found the victim’s testimony (PW-4) to be specific and credible. The judgment states, “From the evidence given by the victim, we are of the view that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness.” The Court observed that the victim had clearly deposed that the appellant took her to Una, where he subjected her to “forcible sexual intercourse” and “carnal intercourse.”
The Court also found that the medical evidence did not contradict the victim’s account. It highlighted the deposition of the examining doctor (PW-1), who stated that upon inquiry, the victim “admitted to have had sexual intercourse on 27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only.” The Court concluded, “…it can be said that the medical evidence does not rule out the possibility of rape upon the victim.”
Crucially, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of consent. The judgment unequivocally states, “Even assuming that the victim had wilfully volunteered to sexual intercourse, this aspect becomes immaterial, as the victim was a minor on the date of the incident in question.”
Concluding its analysis, the bench held that the trial court had wrongly acquitted the appellant. The judgment reads, “…looking at the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial court, the view taken by the High Court was the only possible view. Despite this, the trial court had given the benefit of doubt to the appellant/accused and thereby acquitted him. Thus, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly set aside the judgment passed by the trial court qua the appellant/accused…”
In its final order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence handed down by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
