Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR, Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv., Ms. Ujala Singh, Adv., Ms. Gunita Tandon, Adv., Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR
For the Respondent: Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR, Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv., Mr. C.adhikesavan, Adv., Mr. Harikrishnan P.V, Adv., Mrs. Vibha Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, Adv., Mr. S. Vadivelu, Adv., Mr. P. Senthilkumar, Adv., Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with their corresponding references:

• Case Details: The Supreme Court of India allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondent-accused in a case involving the rape of a nine-year-old girl. The appeal was decided on 24-03-2026 by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. (!) (!)
• Facts of the Offence: On the morning of 27th August 2007, a nine-year-old girl was sent by her mother to fetch buttermilk from a house approximately 8 kilometers away. She was taken into a cowshed by the accused (the neighbour's son) and sexually assaulted. She returned home, reported the incident to her mother and father, and the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged the next morning. (!)
• Trial Court Findings: The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fined Rs. 10,000 for rape, and five years for the Atrocities Act offence. He was acquitted under Section 201 IPC. (!)
• High Court's Acquittal: The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Trial Court's findings and convicted the accused under Section 201 IPC instead. The High Court's reasoning included:
  • The improbability of the victim traveling 16 kilometers round trip within two hours.
  • Serious inconsistencies in testimonies regarding the timeline of events, the location of the FIR registration, and the conduct of the victim's mother.
  • The addition of SC/ST Act charges and Section 201 IPC charges after the initial investigation.
  • The conclusion that medical evidence alone was insufficient due to the contradictions in the prosecution's version. (!) (!) (!)
• Supreme Court's Legal Principles on Evidence:
  • Scope of Appeal: While the Supreme Court is generally loath to interfere with acquittals, it must analyze the evidence when lower courts have arrived at opposite findings (Trial Court convicted, High Court acquitted). (!) (!) (!)
  • Corroboration: Corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony is not a legal requirement for conviction in rape cases unless there are compelling reasons. The testimony of the victim alone can sustain a conviction if it inspires confidence. (!) (!) (!)
  • Inconsistencies: Minor inconsistencies, trivial discrepancies, or variations in trivial matters do not render evidence unreliable. Human perception and memory are imperfect. The evidence must be assessed as a whole to see if it carries the "ring of truth." Only contradictions relating to material facts forming the backbone of the prosecution narrative create reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Medical Evidence: Medical evidence is expert opinion and corroborative in nature. If it contradicts credible ocular evidence, it can be ignored; however, if it corroborates the victim's account, it should not be discarded based on alleged improbabilities in the timeline. (!) (!) (!)
• Appreciation of Evidence in this Case:
  • The Supreme Court held that the prosecutrix positively identified the accused, and this core fact was unchallenged in cross-examination.
  • The alleged improbability of the 16-kilometer travel distance does not negate the fact of the sexual assault, especially if the timeline is viewed with some flexibility (e.g., allowing an extra hour). (!) (!)
  • The High Court's approach was criticized as an attempt to "pick holes" in a case that withstood cross-examination.
  • The medical evidence corroborated the victim's statement that she was sexually assaulted. (!) (!)
• Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent-accused was directed to surrender forthwith and serve the remainder of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. (!)
• Directives: The Court directed that copies of the judgment be sent to all Registrars General of High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the proscription on disclosing the victim's identity under Section 228-A IPC, referencing prior judgments like Nipun Saxena and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh. (!)