Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 706

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 595 of 2016
With
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Chaman Shukla – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 596 of 2016
Decided On : 23-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, AOR Mr. Yash Jain, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Manvendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Selvam P., Adv. Mr. Sameer Aslam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR Ms. Ankita Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Kholi Rakuzhuro, Adv. Mr. Raghav Dembla, Adv. Ms. Vatsal Kak, Adv. Mrs. Vatsala Kak, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Ms. Ritim Mangla, Adv.

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony led to the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376, 201, and 34 - Acquittal of accused in a case of kidnapping and rape - High Court set aside conviction of accused/Sanjay Kumar and accused/Chaman Shukla, finding prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt - The prosecutrix's inconsistent statements and lack of corroborative evidence led to the conclusion that the commission of rape was not proved. (Paras 1, 7, 10)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal - The High Court found that the evidence presented did not meet this standard. (Paras 6, 11)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix, aged 14, was allegedly kidnapped by accused/Sanjay Kumar during a religious event and later raped. The High Court found inconsistencies in her testimony and insufficient evidence to support the charges.

Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused, leading to their acquittal.

Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges of kidnapping and rape.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements warranted acquittal.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. These appeals would call in question, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 28.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 4246 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 4273 of 2013 setting aside the conviction and sentence of accused/Sanjay Kumar under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,¹[(for short, ‘IPC’)], and accused/Chaman Shukla under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC imposed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (H.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 8/7 of 2012 arising out of FIR No. 47 of 2012 dated 31.03.2012, registered at P.S. Barmana, District Bilaspur (H.P.).

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.03.2012, Parkash Chand (PW-5), father of the prosecutrix, was addressing religious story (‘Katha’) in Sri Naina Devi temple at Sohra Buins and his wife Shanta Sharma along with her daughter Tanu Sharma (PW-2) and the prosecutrix aged about 14 years (PW-13) also went to listen the Katha. During Katha, PW-2 asked the prosecutrix to take her son, aged about two years, to bed for sleeping in a room of the temple. After a long time, when the prosecutrix did not return, PW-2 went to the room where she found her son sleeping, but did not find the prosecutrix in the room. Upon this, PW-2 informed her in-laws and others and started searching for the prosecutrix but remained unsuccessful. They raised a suspicion that the accused/Sanjay Kumar had kidnapped the prosecutrix. PW-2 called her husband Narender Shail (PW-1) who made a complaint at the Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur and on that basis, FIR was registered.

2.2. On 01.04.2012, accused/Chaman Shukla along with the prosecutrix went to the Police Station Rampur, District Shimla and informed that he had found her walking on the road at Narkanda on 30.03.2012 and brought her to his home. Upon production of the prosecutrix at Police Station, Rampur, a police party of Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur along with relatives of the prosecutrix reached there and the prosecutrix was handed over to them by entering Rapat in the Rojnamcha at Police Station, Rampur. The accused/Sanjay Kumar was arrested on 04.04.2012 and the prosecutrix as well as accused/Sanjay Kumar were medically examined.

2.3. During the course of investigation, it was found that accused/Sanjay Kumar kidnapped the prosecutrix in his Alto Car bearing registration No. HP-24-8684 on 30.03.2012 and spent that night in the house of Jawala Devi (PW-6) at village Thaila Chakti, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla where he allegedly committed rape on her. On the next day, the prosecutrix was kept in the house of accused/Chaman Shukla who threatened her to state that she came to Rampur of her own volition and further tried to mislead the investigating agency. PW-6 also handed over one shirt of the prosecutrix. Regarding the age of the prosecutrix, the investigating officer procured her birth certificate wherein her date of birth was recorded as 09.12.1997 which is corroborated with the family register. On 07.04.2012, the car was seized along with one mobile phone having sim of Vodafone. On 11.04.2012, the prosecutrix was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

2.4. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and, in course of trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses in support of the charges. The accused pleaded not guilty but did not lead any evidence in defence.

2.5. On the basis of evidence brought on record during the course of trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused/Sanjay Kumar for the subject offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and accused/Chaman Shukla to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 year against which they preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court has set aside the above conviction & sentence and resultantly the Crim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document