Supreme Court Upholds High Court Conviction in Minor’s Rape Case; Appeal Dismissed

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vipul M. Pancholi heard the appeal filed by Varun Kumar alias Sonu against the High Court of Himachal Pradesh’s judgment which had set aside a trial court acquittal and convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 IPC. The appeal challenged the High Court’s reappreciation of evidence, reliance on the victim’s testimony and the sufficiency of medical corroboration.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s judgment and sentence. The Supreme Court accepted the High Court’s finding that the complainant was about 15 years old at the time of the incident and that, on the evidence, conviction was warranted. The Court noted that the medical opinion “did not rule out the possibility of rape” and accepted that the victim’s account was cogent and creditworthy. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Even assuming that the victim had wilfully volunteered to sexual intercourse, this aspect becomes immaterial, as the victim was a minor on the date of the incident in question. As observed hereinabove, as per the case of the prosecution, she was aged about 15 years on the date of the incident." The Court also recorded that “the view taken by the High Court was the only possible view” on the evidence led.

Background The dispute arose from an FIR registered on 28.02.2007 at Police Station Sadar (Hamirpur) following a report by the victim’s uncle. The appellant and a co-accused were charged; the appellant was accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 IPC. The trial court, after prosecution examined 23 witnesses and recorded statements under Section 313 CrPC, acquitted both accused by judgment dated 05.12.2007. The State appealed; the High Court, by judgment dated 18.03.2015 and order dated 08.04.2015, partly allowed the appeal, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 (one year additional in default). The High Court confirmed the trial court’s acquittal of the co-accused.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, pointing to discrepancies in witness statements and to purported conflict between ocular and medical evidence. Counsel emphasised the limited scope for interference with an order of acquittal and argued that where two views were possible the trial court’s view ought to have been respected.

The State relied on the victim’s consistent testimony (PW-4) and on medical evidence from PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 recorded that the victim “admitted to have had sexual intercourse on 27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only” and opined that she “may have undergone sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time of examination,” while PW-2 stated that the victim reported anal intercourse though the doctor found “no evidence of anal intercourse” but that “the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out.” The Supreme Court accepted that the victim was a minor and held that even if consent were alleged, it was immaterial given her age; the Court concluded that the High Court’s reappreciation and resultant conviction were sustainable. The appeal therefore failed and was dismissed; there were no interim directions or modification of sentence.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1232 Case Title: Varun Kumar alias Sonu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment