Supreme Court Restored Trial Court Conviction in 1986 Child Rape Case, Setting Aside High Court Acquittal

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol heard the State of Rajasthan’s appeal against the Jaipur High Court’s 2013 order acquitting the respondent accused in a 1986 sexual assault case involving a minor. The appeal challenged the Single Judge’s decision which had set aside the Sessions Court’s 1987 conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC.

The Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the trial court’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its appraisal of the evidence and failed to independently and properly re-evaluate the material before it. The Court emphasised principles applicable to child witnesses and circumstantial proof, and noted that the victim’s silence in court did not automatically benefit the accused where medical and other evidence supported the prosecution. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The principles that can be adduced from an overview of the aforesaid decisions, are: a. No hard and fast rule can be laid down qua testing the competency of a child witness to testify at trial. b. Whether or not a given child witness will testify is a matter of the Trial Judge being satisfied as to the ability and competence of said witness. c. The non-administration of oath to a child witness will not render their testimony doubtful or unusable. d. The trial Judge must be alive to the possibility of the child witness being swayed, influenced and tutored. e. Seeking corroboration, therefore, of the testimony of a child witness, is well-placed practical wisdom. f. There is no bar to cross-examination of a child witness. If said witness has withstood the cross-examination, the prosecution would be entirely within their rights to seek conviction even solely relying thereon.” The Court directed the respondent to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, if not already served.

Background The incident occurred on 3 March 1986 when a minor girl (referred to as ‘V’) was found unconscious and bleeding by one Gulab Chand, who lodged an FIR on 4 March. The Sessions Court, after trial in 1987, convicted the accused and sentenced him to seven years RI and a fine. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced medical evidence (PW-14, Dr. Vasudev) describing genital injuries and opining that the injuries could result from forcible intercourse; the principal eyewitness was PW-2 Gulab Chand and PW-10 Prabhu gave corroborative accounts of finding the child unconscious and blood-soiled. The victim (PW-1) was examined in court but remained largely silent and tearful, giving no direct account of the assault.

On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused in 2013, relying on perceived contradictions in PW-2’s statements, the victim’s non-communication in court and the absence of semen in forensic reports; it remarked that “the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.” The Supreme Court criticised the High Court’s brief treatment of the merits, noted the long delay in final adjudication (the criminal appeal filed in 1987 was disposed in 2013), and examined the record afresh. The Court held that the victim’s silence, being that of a traumatized child, could not be equated with hostile testimony and did not necessarily accrue to the benefit of the accused. The Court found that medical findings and other circumstantial facts were consistent with the trial court’s conclusion and that allegations of motive and bribery were not established to create reasonable doubt. The Court also observed earlier precedents on child victims, quoting that “Child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex ... It is a crime against humanity,” and followed settled principles on assessing child testimony and circumstantial evidence (including the Sharad Sardh principles). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the conviction, and directed surrender within four weeks; it ordered return of the original records to the trial court and closed pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2017; 2025 INSC 360 Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Chatra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): State of Rajasthan – Advocate not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Chatra – Advocate not indicated in the judgment