The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of two accused in a rape and abduction case, affirming the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to set aside the conviction due to inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony and lack of corroborative evidence. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar and State of Himachal Pradesh vs Chaman Shukla, Criminal Appeal Nos. 595–596 of 2016.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 47 of 2012 registered on 31 March 2012 at Police Station Barmana, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, was allegedly abducted on 30 March 2012 from Sri Naina Devi temple where her family had gone to attend a religious event. It was claimed that Sanjay Kumar kidnapped her in his car and spent the night with her at the residence of one Jawala Devi in Thaila Chakti, where he allegedly raped her. The following day, she was taken to the house of co-accused Chaman Shukla, who purportedly instructed her to give a false statement to the police.
The prosecutrix was found on 1 April 2012 and was produced at the Police Station, Rampur. The case was investigated, and charges were filed under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Sanjay Kumar and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC against Chaman Shukla. The Sessions Court convicted both accused — sentencing Sanjay Kumar to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and Chaman Shukla to one year of simple imprisonment.
High Court’s Findings
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, however, reversed the conviction on 28 December 2015. It observed material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements regarding the date and location of the alleged rape. While her statement under Section 164 CrPC mentioned that the offence occurred on the night of 31 March 2012 at the house of Chaman Shukla, she later stated in court that it occurred on 30 March 2012 at Jawala Devi’s residence.
Moreover, the High Court noted that:
- The prosecutrix did not inform any person in either house about the alleged incident.
- Key witness Jawala Devi (PW-6) did not support the prosecution case.
- There was no corroborative evidence, such as DNA analysis, to support the allegation.
- The FIR initially registered was only for abduction and made no mention of rape.
Given these inconsistencies and lack of credible corroboration, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Conclusion
The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s findings. The Bench observed:
“There is material contradiction in the statement of the Prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape and since accused Sanjay Kumar was not with the Prosecutrix in the night of 31.03.2012… the commission of rape by accused Sanjay Kumar is not proved.”
The Court further remarked that the view taken by the High Court was a plausible one based on the evidence on record and did not warrant interference.
Accordingly, both criminal appeals filed by the State challenging the acquittals were dismissed.
Citation:
State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar & Chaman Shukla, Criminal Appeal Nos. 595–596 of 2016, Supreme Court of India
