Supreme Court upholds High Court acquittal in child‑abduction and rape case, State's appeals dismissed

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard appeals by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had set aside convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court in Bilaspur for offences including kidnapping, rape and destruction of evidence. The appeals arose from Sessions Trial No. 8/7 of 2012 (FIR No. 47 of 2012, P.S. Barmana) in which two accused were convicted; the State sought reinstatement of those convictions.

The Court dismissed the State's appeals and declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment of acquittal, holding that the High Court's view was a "plausible view considering the evidence on record." The Supreme Court noted material contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements about the date and place of the alleged sexual assault, lack of corroboration from material witnesses and absence of forensic linkage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the above statement on record, we are of the view that there is material contradiction in the statement of the Prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape and since accused/Sanjay Kumar was not with the Prosecutrix in the night of 31.03.2012 when she was in the house of co-accused/Chaman Shukla and there is no allegation of rape against accused/Chaman Shukla in whose house she stayed on the next night, the High Court has rightly concluded that the commission of rape by accused/Sanjay Kumar is not proved." The Court further recorded the High Court's observation that "the possibility of rape could not be ruled out, but the question remained as to who committed the rape and moreover, the DNA profile of the semen found over the underwear of the Prosecutrix has not been done."

Background The prosecution case was that a girl aged about 14 was taken from a temple on 30.03.2012 by accused Sanjay Kumar, driven to Rampur and kept overnight at the house of one Jawala Devi where rape was alleged to have been committed; she was later said to have been left at the house of co-accused Chaman Shukla and subsequently produced at Rampur police station. The FIR initially registered concerned abduction. Investigation seized the vehicle and a mobile phone, and the prosecutrix's birth record indicated a date of birth of 09.12.1997. The trial court convicted Sanjay Kumar under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine; Chaman Shukla was convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to one year.

At trial, the prosecution relied principally on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence and circumstantial material; the defence denied the allegations and alleged false implication. The High Court, after reviewing statements and contemporaneous entries, found inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's account—noting that she had not disclosed the alleged rape to persons at Rampur or to those who accompanied her to the police station and that key witnesses including Jawala Devi did not support the prosecution. The High Court further observed that while medical evidence did not rule out sexual assault, absence of DNA profiling and gaps in corroboration rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to sustain conviction. Accepting that view as a plausible appraisal of evidence, the Supreme Court held that interference with the High Court's order of acquittal was not warranted and dismissed the appeals on 23 April 2025.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 595 & 596 OF 2016; 2025 INSC 561 Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar & Chaman Shukla Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Advocate (for the State) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Advocate (for the accused/respondents)