Himachal Pradesh High Court | Acquittal in Rape Case Upheld | Absence of Injuries on Prosecutrix and Unreliable Testimony Cited as Indicating Possible Consent
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, dismissing the State’s appeal under Section 378 CrPC. The Bench noted that while a conviction for sexual assault can rest on the sole credible testimony of the prosecutrix, her version in this case was inconsistent and lacked the reliability of a “sterling witness.” The Court further observed that the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix, as shown by medical evidence, supported the inference that she may have consented to the act, and affirmed the 2015 trial court’s acquittal.
The State of Himachal Pradesh preferred an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.02.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Una, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2014. The accused had been acquitted of offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 31.08.2013 when the prosecutrix, a housewife, returned home after collecting grass from a hillock. She alleged that the accused, her cousin, was sitting on a cot in the courtyard. Upon entering her room to fetch water, the accused allegedly followed her, gagged her mouth, and committed rape. She further stated that her clothes were torn during the assault and that the accused threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed the incident. The accused then fled on his motorcycle.
The prosecutrix claimed she informed her husband upon his return, who, in turn, called her brother the next day. Subsequently, an application was filed at the Bangana Police Station, leading to the registration of an FIR. Medical examinations of both the prosecutrix and the accused were conducted, scientific samples were collected and sent for analysis, and the accused’s motorcycle was seized. A statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded.
The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her husband, and her relatives. The accused denied the charges in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and claimed innocence. The trial court found the evidence insufficient and acquitted him.
The State argued that the trial court erred in discarding the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and that the acquittal was unsustainable. Conversely, the defense contended that the trial court’s judgment was well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence.
The Bench observed: “Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.”
It cited precedents including State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, which established that corroboration is not a legal necessity unless the prosecutrix’s version is doubtful.
However, upon analyzing the evidence, the Court recorded that the conduct of the prosecutrix appeared unnatural. It noted discrepancies such as the omission of crucial details in the FIR, absence of injuries on her body despite her claim of resistance, and inconsistencies regarding communication with family members. The judgment recorded: “It appears to be highly unimaginable that a young well built lady of 40 years would not show any resistance when the accused was tearing her clothes and was sexually molesting her.”
The Court further stated: “The medical evidence clearly shows that the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury on any part of her body and there was no mark of any injury or violence on her person at the time of her medical examination, which further fortifies the fact that she did not resist the alleged act.” It also found the explanation regarding non-disclosure to her sister, residing nearby, unconvincing.
Referring to the requirement of a “sterling witness” as laid down in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench held that the prosecutrix’s testimony failed to meet this standard. The Court remarked: “When the statement of the prosecutrix is carefully scrutinized, we find that the same is not of sterling quality and does not inspire confidence as it contains material inconsistencies and contradictions which affect the core of the prosecution case.”
It recorded: “In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, no interference in the judgment of acquittal, dated 02.02.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Una, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2014, is required. The view taken by the learned Trial Court was the only possible view, as such the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.”
In light of Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the respondent was directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within four weeks. “In the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” The appeal and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sunil Khan
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:31354-DB
Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 281 of 2015
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Justice Sushil Kukreja
