“Trauma Has Engulfed Her in Silence”: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in 1986 Minor Rape Case, Finds “No Crack” in Prosecution Case
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court has set aside an acquittal by the Rajasthan High Court and restored the conviction of a respondent-accused in a case of sexual assault against a minor, nearly forty years after the incident occurred. The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol in its judgment dated March 18, 2025, reinstated the conviction and sentence originally passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the competent authority within four weeks to serve out the sentence.
The Court stated, “the appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal entered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in S.B Criminal Appeal No.503/1987 is set aside, and the judgment of conviction returned by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, by judgment dated 19th November 1987 in Sessions Trial No.26/86 is restored.” The Bench further directed, “the respondent-accused is directed to surrender before the competent authority within four weeks from the date of this judgment, to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court, if not already served.”
The incident dates back to 3rd March 1986 in Sureli village, Rajasthan, where a minor girl was found unconscious and bleeding after allegedly being sexually assaulted. A First Information Report was lodged on 4th March 1986 based on the complaint of Gulab Chand, examined as PW-2, who discovered the child and named the accused in his report.
The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC on 19th November 1987, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The conviction was based on the testimony of Gulab Chand, medical evidence presented by PW-14 Dr. Vasudev, and other corroborative materials. The Rajasthan High Court, by its judgment dated 12th July 2013, reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondent-accused. The acquittal was based on inconsistencies between the FIR and PW-2’s testimony, the silence of the minor victim during the trial, and the absence of semen traces in the forensic report.
The respondent-accused contended that the case was fabricated due to animosity arising from a tenancy dispute between the victim’s father and the accused. Two defence witnesses were examined, including the respondent’s brother, who deposed that an attempt was made to influence the medical officer.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not properly discharge its duty as the first appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence. The Bench recorded, “we are surprised with the manner in which this matter was dealt with by the High Court. As the First Appellate Court, the High Court is expected to independently assess the evidence before it before confirming or disturbing the findings of the Court below.”
The Court addressed the issue of the victim’s silence, recording, “trauma has engulfed her in silence. It would be unfair to burden her young shoulders with the weight of the entire prosecution.” The Court noted that absence of testimony from the prosecutrix in cases involving child victims does not automatically negate the prosecution’s case.
The Court referred to Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat to affirm that medical and circumstantial evidence may form the basis for conviction even in the absence of direct testimony by the victim.
The Court examined PW-2’s statement, which disclosed that he saw the accused atop the victim. Noting discrepancies between the FIR and his court testimony, the Court recorded, “the question that arises for consideration is whether this contradiction in the FIR versus the statement made in Court is material, in as much as, to discredit his statement, thereby landing a fatal blow to the prosecution case.” It found that the alleged contradictions were not material enough to weaken the prosecution’s case.
Referring to State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh, the Court recorded that the purpose of cross-examination is to discredit the witness or extract facts favourable to the defence, adding, “Having gone through the cross-examination of this witness, we find none of these criteria to have been met. Even this discrepancy was not put to him so as to get an answer from the witness in this regard.”
The Court also cited Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., observing that whether such discrepancies are material must be assessed in the context of the entire evidence, particularly when medical findings support the prosecution’s case.
Turning to the medical evidence, the Bench observed that PW-14, Dr. Vasudev, recorded injuries on the victim consistent with forcible sexual intercourse and also noted injuries on the accused's genitalia. The Court recorded, “the version suggested by the defence that the injury caused to the private part of ‘V’ could not have been caused by a nail or an all-pin.” The Court also observed that attempts to discredit the doctor on the basis of bribery allegations were “only a mere allegation/statement, as the same is entirely unsubstantiated by the record.”
The Bench recorded that “the cause of injury to ‘V’ can be through sexual intercourse, or an accident,” and that the injuries on the accused were consistent with “forceful intercourse with a minor female.”
The Court concluded that the cumulative effect of the medical and circumstantial evidence pointed solely towards the respondent’s guilt. It recorded, “the possibility of animosity between the accused and the father of ‘V’ has not been established to the point that it would represent a crack in the wall of the prosecution case, giving rise to reasonable doubt.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the conviction under Section 376 IPC and directed the respondent-accused to surrender within four weeks.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Raunak Singhvi, Advocate
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Chatra
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 360
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2017
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol
[Read/Download order]
