REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

1231

OF 2016

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 5575 OF 2015)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SANJAY KUMAR @ SUNNY

.....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2)

Since the matter was fixed for final disposal, counsel for both the parties

were heard in detail.

3)

It is a case where the respondent herein was charged for having

committed an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). After trial, the Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh,

convicted the respondent under Section 376(2)(f) as well as under

Section 506 of the IPC.

1

Digitally signed by

MADHU BALA

Date: 2016.12.15

16:43:52 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

4)

The respondent challenged the order by preferring the appeal before the

High Court in which he succeeded as the High Court, after revisiting the

issue, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to it there existed

certain circumstances which created reasonable doubt in the version of

the prosecution. It has resulted in setting aside the conviction recorded

by the trial court thereby acquitting the respondent. This judgment of the

High Court is assailed in these proceedings.

5)

In the impugned judgment, the High Court has taken note of the

prosecution case. As there is no dispute that the said version is correctly

recorded by the High Court, we reproduce the same from the said

judgment.

6)

As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix, who, at the relevant time, was

nine years old, used to reside at Dalhousie with her parents. She was

studying in VII Standard in Moti Ka Tibba school in Dalhousie. Her

native place is Aruwan. Her grandparents had been living in joint family

at Aruwan. Somewhere in the month of December 2009, during winter

vacation, prosecutrix visited the place of her grandparents. She had

been taken there by her mother Babli (PW-1). While at the place of her

grandparents, the prosecutrix was playing with her younger brother. The

respondent called her to the room on the first floor. She responded to

2

the call of the accused. On reaching the room, the respondent bolted

the door from inside and made the prosecutrix lie on the bed. Her mouth

was gagged. The respondent stripped off salwar of the prosecutrix of

her one leg. He put off his trousers. Thereafter, he laid on the

prosecutrix and thrust his penis inside her vagina. She fell unconscious.

When she regained consciousness, the prosecutrix found no one in the

room. The respondent also criminally intimidated the prosecutrix not to

disclose this act to anyone, otherwise she would be killed. After 10-15

days again, the respondent took the prosecutrix to the same room and

committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix

returned to Dalhousie. Again, after two months, the prosecutrix visited

her grandparents on seven days vacation. During this period also, the

respondent took her forcibly to his own room where he had sexual

intercourse with her and once again criminally intimidated her not to

disclose the act to anyone. After a lapse of 2-3 months again, the

prosecutrix visited her grandparents and the respondent yet again called

her to which she did not respond and slipped away. Prior to September

2012, the prosecutrix started complaining of stomach ache and was

given medicine by the local doctor. PW-1 took her for treatment at

Kakira Hospital on September 03, 2012. She was medically checked up

by Dr. Jasbir Kaur (PW-8). She told the mother of the prosecutrix that

her daughter might have been sexually assaulted 2-3 years back. PW-1

3

enquired from the prosecutrix as to what happened with her 2-3 years

back. The prosecutrix then told her mother