SC Restores Rape Conviction, Minor Contradictions Dismissed

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had set aside the conviction of the accused for the sexual assault of a nine‑year‑old. The appeal arose from the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent, Hukum Chand alias Monu, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2008 consequent to its finding of material contradictions and alleged improbabilities in the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, directing the respondent to surrender forthwith and to serve the remainder of the sentence. 

The Court held that the prosecutrix’s testimony inspired confidence and that medical evidence corroborated the occurrence of a sexual act, rejecting the High Court’s reliance on alleged trivial contradictions and an asserted improbability of travel time as sufficient to negate the core prosecution case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “As already referred above, the evidence of the prosecutrix alone, in matters such as these is sufficient to convict the accused. As such, on PW‑1’s evidence alone the offence stands established. The evidence of others only adds further credence to the statement of the victim. We may add that animosity is a double‑edged sword and if given undue weight, may lead to injustice, in view of the uncontroverted testimony of the victim.” The Bench also emphasised that the non‑compliance with statutory anonymity protections was unacceptable, noting that “The name of the victim is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record. This must be deprecated in the strongest terms.”

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on 27 August 2007 when a nine‑year‑old girl who had been sent to fetch buttermilk was taken into a cowshed by the neighbour’s son and sexually assaulted. Her parents lodged FIR No. 355 of 2007 at Sunder Nagar after the child narrated the incident; the victim underwent medical examination and her bloodstained clothes were handed over to police. The police charged the accused under Sections 376 and 201 IPC and Section 3(xii) of the SC/ST Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused, relying on the victim’s testimony, corroborative statements of parents and medical evidence, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment with fines.

The High Court reversed the conviction, citing what it described as major contradictions among prosecution witnesses, the improbability of the victim having traversed the stated distance within the alleged time, delay in reporting by the mother, and the post‑FIR addition of SC/ST and Section 201 charges by the supervising officer. The High Court treated medical opinion as merely corroborative and found those infirmities sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court analysed established principles governing interference in acquittals under Article 136 and the law on appreciation of child‑witness testimony, including precedents requiring restraint in reappraisal of concurrent findings and guidelines for assessing child witnesses. It held that minor discrepancies or trivial variations in peripheral matters did not dislodge the unchallenged core testimony of the prosecutrix, and that medical evidence corroborated exposure to a sexual act. Noting the jurisprudential stance that conviction can rest on the solitary testimony of a prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, the Court concluded that the High Court’s approach amounted to impermissible re‑weighing of evidence. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the respondent was directed to surrender and serve the balance of his sentence. The Court further directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to Registrars General of all High Courts to ensure strict compliance with Section 228‑A IPC and associated non‑disclosure mandates.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1275 OF 2015
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 290
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand alias Monu

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 258