The Supreme Court set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that reversed the acquittal of an accused in a rape case, holding that medical and forensic evidence contradicting prosecution witnesses creates a grave doubt regarding the allegations. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the High Court failed to consider the final medical report and the forensic examination report while overturning the well-reasoned acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident alleged to have occurred on June 28, 2009. The appellant, Ram Singh, was residing with one Jaidev Sharma while both were serving together. According to the prosecution, the four-and-a-half-year-old daughter of the informant went to Jaidev Sharma’s house at around 8:30 a.m. and returned after half an hour.
Upon her return, her mother found bloodstains on her clothes, gave her a bath, and washed the garments. After contacting her husband and father, the informant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at 5:45 p.m. alleging that the appellant had sexually assaulted her daughter and later called her mobile seeking forgiveness.
The trial court, by a judgment dated January 12, 2010, acquitted the appellant after finding that the depositions of the victim, her mother, and her uncle did not inspire confidence due to material discrepancies, and that medical examination showed no injuries on the victim.
However, on appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the High Court reversed the acquittal on June 3, 2016, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹50,000. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant, learned counsel Ms. Sonam Gupta argued that the High Court was unjustified in reversing the acquittal without addressing the well-reasoned trial court judgment. She pointed out that prosecution witnesses had made improvements to their statements after medical reports revealed no injuries.
She emphasized that the State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed that even after performing the Benzidine test, no blood or semen was detected on the victim’s clothes or the mats seized from the spot of occurrence. Citing legal and medical texts—including A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi and studies from the Indian Journal of Modern Research and Reviews—she argued that the screening test conclusively ruled out bloodstains, rendering the evidence against the appellant unsustainable.
On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Additional Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh, supported the conviction. He submitted that the High Court correctly re-appreciated the evidence, asserting that the victim’s testimony was reliable and that medical evidence could not automatically override ocular evidence. He argued that the trial court’s order was perverse and that the High Court rightly interfered.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the medical and forensic material alongside the witness testimonies. The victim was examined on the night of the incident by Dr. Asha Negi (PW4), who noted no sign of injury, inflammation, redness, bruising, or laceration on her body, with her hymen intact. The final medical opinion concluded that there was no evidence to suggest penetration had occurred. The medical officer testified that if a girl child were subjected to sexual intercourse by a grown-up man, she would suffer injuries, which were entirely absent in this case.
Furthermore, items seized from the scene (a mat and baithak) as well as the victim’s clothes were sent for forensic analysis. The FSL report explicitly concluded:
“Blood and semen was not detected on exhibit-1a (chatai/mat), exhibit-1b (bethaku), exhibit-2a (salwar, xxxxxx), exhibit-2b (shirt, xxxxxx), exhibit-3 (underwear, Ram Singh), exhibit-4 (glans swab, Ram Singh), exhibit-5 (public hair, Ram Singh), exhibit-10a (vaginal slide, xxxxxx), exhibit-10b (vaginal swab, xxxxxx) and exhibit-11 (pajami, xxxxxx).”
Addressing the reliability of the Benzidine test, the Court referred to academic literature noting that the test detects blood presence even up to ten washings regardless of detergent use, and cited Modi’s medical jurisprudence text establishing that negative screening results are reliable.
The Court also highlighted discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence. While the victim stated that the incident occurred on a cot, the Investigating Officer stated that the crime took place in the kitchen, where no cot or bed existed.
Evaluating the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court observed:
“The High Court, however, was of the view that the contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence was not very material. It proceeded to accept the evidence led by the prosecution but without referring either to the Final Medical Report or the report of the FSL.”
Re-evaluating the complete evidence, the bench noted:
“When the deposition of prosecution witnesses is considered along with the Final Medical Report as well as the report of the FSL, a serious doubt is created as to the version of PW2 and PW3.”
“We do not find the material on record sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The material in that regard falls short and it, in fact, creates a serious doubt about the version of the prosecution.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment dated June 3, 2016. Restoring the trial court’s order of acquittal, the Court acquitted Ram Singh of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and cancelled his bail bonds.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ram Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2016
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: August 11, 2026
