Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Sushil Kukreja, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Khan - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 281 of 2015
Decided On : 12-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.

Acquittal in rape case upheld as prosecutrix testimony lacks sterling quality due to improbabilities, contradictions, unnatural conduct, absence of injuries, failing to inspire confidence despite potential for conviction on sole reliable testimony.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Rape - Conviction possible on sole testimony of prosecutrix if sterling quality, inspires confidence, consistent, natural, withstands cross-examination - Here, prosecutrix testimony unreliable due to unnatural conduct (no hue and cry despite nearby houses, no resistance by able-bodied woman, both hands free), contradictions (gagging omitted from FIR/complaint, implausible one-handed cloth tearing), absence of injuries/violence on medical exam, failure to inform nearby sister promptly, improbable delay explanations - Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 9, 11-23)

(B) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Double presumption of innocence - Appellate Court to review evidence but not interfere if trial court view reasonable, two views possible - Stricter proof for serious offences. (Para 9)

(C) Evidence - Prosecutrix not accomplice - Testimony evaluated on probabilities - Corroboration not rule but prudence where shaky - Medical/circumstantial evidence relevant if testimony doubtful. (Paras 11-14)

Facts of the case:
Prosecutrix alleged accused (relative) entered home when alone, gagged mouth, tore clothes, committed rape on bed, threatened dire consequences, fled on motorcycle. Disclosed to husband evening, brother next day; FIR lodged. Investigation: medical exam (no injuries), samples, site plan, recoveries, accused disclosure. Trial court acquitted post 16 witnesses.

Findings of Court:
Prosecutrix deposition not sterling, tainted with inconsistencies, embellishments, improbabilities; does not inspire confidence; no interference with acquittal warranted.

Issues: Whether prosecutrix testimony reliable/sterling for conviction; scope of appellate interference with acquittal in rape case.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate court upholds acquittal where prosecutrix account belies logic (unnatural behavior, no resistance/injuries), contains material contradictions affecting core case; sole testimony insufficient if not trustworthy despite legal possibility.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. appeal against trial court rape acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. (Para 6 , 7)
3. cautious appellate review of acquittals. (Para 8 , 9)
4. prosecutrix credible testimony suffices without corroboration. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. reject improbable prosecutrix story. (Para 15)
6. prosecutrix version assessed for sterling quality. (Para 16 , 17)
7. testimony unreliable due to improbabilities, contradictions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed. (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 02.02.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2014, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 01.09.2013 the prosecutrix/victim (name withheld) got lodged a complaint at Police Station, Bangana, wherein she alleged that her husband was labourer and on 31.08.2013, he had gone to the village for his work. She further alleged that her children had also gone to the school and after collecting grass from the forest, she returned home at around 12 noon. When she came back home, she found Sunil Mohammad (accused) sitting on a cot in the verandah of her house. She went inside the room to bring water for him, but in the interregnum, the accused also entered the room and caught hold of her and laid her on the double bed. As per the prosecutrix, the accused had torn her clothes and committed rape upon her. The accused also threatened her with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. Thereafter, on motor cycle, bearing registration No. HP-72-0397, the accused left the place. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband when he returned home, but she could not report the matter to the police on 31.08.2013 due to fear. Upon the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, the police registered a case against the accused and the investigation commenced. The prosecutrix was got medically examined at R.H. Una and scientific samples were preserved. Police photographed the spot, prepared the site plan, effected relevant recoveries and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was also medically examined at CHC Bangana. The scientific samples were sent for chemical analysis to RFSL, Dharamshala. During the course of the investigation, the accused made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the place of occurrence was demarcated. The motorcycle of the accused was taken into possession and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completion of the investigation, police presented the chagesheet before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 19.06.2014 framed charge against the accused under Section 376 and 506 of IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence.

5. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 02.02.2015, acquitted the accused for the offences charged against him, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.

6. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has discarded the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons as such the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant app