Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 494

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Chatra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2017
Decided on : 18-03-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sanskriti Pathak, AAG Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv. Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv. Ms. Pratima Yadav, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Privacy of victims of sexual offences must be protected.
(2) Rape – Degree of certainty is required before a person can be either convicted or acquitted of a crime – Absence of evidence of prosecutrix is, not in all cases, a negative to be accounted for in prosecution case.
(3) Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 228A and 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Rape – Appeal against acquittal by High Court – As First Appellate Court, High Court is expected to independently assess evidence before it before confirming or disturbing findings of Court below – High Court has referred to victim by name throughout – Supreme Court has highlighted importance of abiding by such a restriction, preserving privacy of unfortunate victim, even though restriction does not expressly apply to High Court or Supreme Court – Given fleeting consideration bestowed on merits of matter, order of remand to High Court for consideration afresh, could have been a permissible view, however as genesis of this case is 40 years old, justice would not be served by adopting this approach. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 228A and 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Rape – Appeal against acquittal by High Court – Circumstantial evidence – Chain of circumstances must be so complete that it rules out all other possible hypotheses other than guilt of accused – Degree of certainty is required before a person can be either convicted or acquitted of a crime – Absence of evidence of prosecutrix is, not in all cases, a negative to be accounted for in prosecution case – Injury on genital organ of accused being possible only due to forceful intercourse with a minor female, leads to a circumstance pointing to respondent-accused having committed offence against victim – Possibility of animosity between accused and father of victim has not been established to the point that it would represent a crack in wall of prosecution case, giving rise to reasonable doubt – Judgment of High Court set aside and Judgment of conviction returned by Trial Court restored. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth – To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response – Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to guilt of accused persons arising from evidence, or from lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – Forensic probability must, in last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on trained intuitions of Judge – While protection given by criminal process to accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. (Paras 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned Judgment findings of guilt returned by Trial Court under Section 376 of IPC were upturned and respondent-accused was acquitted of charges against him.
Findings of Court:
Judgment of acquittal entered by 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 Judgment of conviction returned by Trial Court, by Judgment dated 19th November 1987 in Sessions Trial No.26/86 is restored. Respondent-accused is directed to surrender before competent authority within four weeks from date of this judgment, to serve out the sentence as awarded by learned Trial Court, if not already served.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court emphasizes protecting privacy of sexual-offence victims and appropriately handling victim identification in judgments. (!) - It discusses the standard of reasonable doubt in rape cases, including need for evidence-based, not merely imaginary or emotional doubts; reaffirming that absence of prosecutrix evidence is not always a negative for the prosecution. (!) (!) - It analyzes evaluation of child witnesses, outlining guidelines for competency, the potential need for corroboration, and careful scrutiny of their testimony, especially in cases involving a child victim of sexual assault; also cites the Gatekeeping role of the trial judge and the significance of circumstantial evidence in conviction. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Nearly forty years ago, on 3rd March 1986 happened an incident, that forever altered the trajectory of a minor girl’s life, who for the purposes of this judgment, shall be referred to as ‘V’[¹[Identity concealed]]. She was discovered unconscious and bleeding from her private parts, by one Gulab Chand, after the respondent-accused had allegedly subjected her to sexual assault. The said Gulab Chand filed a report with the concerned police station on 4th March, 1986²[Crime No. 31/86] - and now by way of this judgment, the matter shall be finally laid to rest. It is a matter of great sadness that this minor girl and her family have to go through nearly four decades of life, waiting to close this horrific chapter of her/their lives.

2. The State is before us, being aggrieved by the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur³[In S.B Criminal Appeal No. 503/1987], vide judgment dated 12th July 2013 which set aside the finding of conviction entered by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk⁴[Sessions Trial 26/86] vide judgment dated 19th November 1987.

3. The FIR recorded the occurrence of incident in the following terms:-

“To,

The S.H.O.

Uniyara.

Sir,

Subject : With regard to the rape with ‘V’ D/o ‘[Name of the father of the victim is also redacted for the purpose of protection of identity].

It is respectfully submitted that it is incident of about 1:30 hours that I had gone to handle well on hut of Khadda in village Sureli, and as soon as I reached near the house of Chhatra S/o Sukhdeva Jat then I heard sound of cry of a little girl, where upon I entered into the house then the dhoti of accused was in open condition and he ran outside seeing me. I saw that ‘V’ who is daughter of ‘X’ was lying unconscious and blood was oozing from her private part, at that time Prabhu Kumhar came there on camel Lattha from the side of Banatha, as such I sit with girl over the Lattha of camel and brought her to house because neither Mother of her was present in house and nor ‘X’. After some time Savitri mother of ‘V’ came to our village but since any means of conveyance was not available for going to police station therefore report was not lodged. Primary treatment was provided by calling nurse of Sureli and Private Sindhi Doctor Siwad and thereafter today after coming from there I had lodged report in police station.

Applicant – Gulab Chand

S/o Sunder Lal Caste Mahajan

R/o Sureli

Sd/-

Gulab Chand Gupta

Date 4.3.86”

4. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented to the Court for trial. To prove its version of events, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The respondent-accused termed it to be a false case that Gulab Chand had concocted since he wanted the father of ‘V’ to vacate the house of the respondent-accused. He put forth 2 witnesses and four documents in his defence.

TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT

5. The sole issue before the Trial Court was whether the respondent-accused had sexually assaulted ‘V’ or not. A perusal of the judgments reveals that the complainant, Gulab Chand who was examined as PW-2 has been greatly relied on, supported by the deposition of PW-14, Dr. Vasudev. Regarding the commission of sexual assault against ‘V’, the finding is as under :

“39. In such situation when we again believe on deposition of PW-2 Gulabchand then his such evidence that accused committed forcible rape with PW-1 ‘V’ becomes believable and in this regard deposition of PW- 2 Gulabchand stands corroborated from deposition of PW-14 Vasudev that what injury in vagina of PW-1 ‘V’ was caused, that was caused by forcible sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse was forcibly committed by accused with PW-1. PW-14 Dr. Vasudev has stated even to the extent that the hymen of PW-1