Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1232
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2018
VARUN KUMAR ALIAS SONU …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. The present appeal has been directed against the final judgment
dated 18.03.2015 and the final order dated 08.04.2015 rendered by the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal Number
139 of 2008, whereby the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh
against the petitioner was allowed and the judgment dated 05.12.2007
of the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions
Trial Number 11 of 2007 was partly set aside.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.10.14
16:27:17 IST
Reason:
2.1. Girdhari Lal, uncle of the victim girl, lodged a report with the
police on the basis of which FIR No. 88 dated 28.02.2007 was registered
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 1 of 10
at Police Station, Sadar (Hamirpur) for offences punishable under
Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “the IPC”). During the course of investigation, Sections
376 and 377 of the IPC were added to the FIR. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet against the present
appellant /accused as well as the co-accused, Deepak Rai Verma.
2.2. The appellant/accused was charged for having committed
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 of the IPC,
while the co-accused was charged for committing offences under
Sections 212 and 368 of the IPC.
2.3. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in order to
establish its case before the concerned trial court. The statements of
the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) were also
recorded.
2.4. The Trial Court, by judgment and order dated 05.12.2007,
acquitted both the accused persons.
2.5. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before
the High Court against the judgment and order of acquittal rendered
by the trial court. The High Court, by way of the impugned judgment,
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 2 of 10
partly allowed the appeal against the appellant/accused and the
appellant/accused was convicted for committing offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 of the IPC. Vide the final order
dated 08.04.2015, the appellant/accused was sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and
in default of payment of fine, further undergo imprisonment for a
period of one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal qua the co-
accused, thereby confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial
court so far as the co-accused is concerned.
2.6. The appellant/accused has therefore preferred the present
appeal before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that
though the prosecution failed to prove the case against the
appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court has
wrongly convicted the appellant/accused for committing the alleged
offences. Learned counsel referred to the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses, including the deposition given by the victim (PW-4) as well
as the deposition given by the Doctor (PW-1), who had examined the
victim. It is contended that the medical evidence does not support the
version given by the victim, despite which the High Court has
convicted the appellant/accused. It is further submitted that there are
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 3 of 10
major discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, despite which the High Court has believed the
version given by the victim. At this stage, it is contended that the victim
cannot be termed as a sterling witness and therefore, the High Court
ought not to have relied upon the version given by the victim. When
there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular
evidence of the prosecution , the benefit of doubt is required to be
given to the accused and in fact the trial court has rightly passed the
order of acquittal in favour of the appellant/accused.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused further submitted that
when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence laid by the
prosecution and if the Trial Court has taken one possible view by
acquitting the accused, it was not open for the High Court to take
another possible view relying upon the evidence laid by the
prosecution. It is contended that the scope of interference in an order
of acquittal is limited, despite which the High Court has interfered with
the order of acquittal rendered by the trial court and therefore, the
impugned judgment passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has not disputed the
age of the victim. In fact, on the basis of the evidence led by the
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 4 of 10
prosecution before the trial court, the trial court determined the age of
the victim as 15 years.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused, therefore, urged that
the present appeal be allowed and thereby, the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court be set aside.
8. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent State opposed the present appeal. Learned counsel
submitted that the High Court has reappreciated the entire evidence
led by the prosecution and thereafter, given a finding that the age of
the victim was 15 years at the time of the incident and since, the said
finding is not disputed by the appellant/accused, this Court may
consider the age of the victim as 15 years. Thus, it is contended that the
victim was a minor and that too below 16 years of age at the time of the
incident.
9. Learned counsel for the State thereafter contended that the victim
(PW-4) has fully supported the case of the prosecution and in fact the
victim has narrated the manner in which the incident took place while
giving deposition before the Court. Specific allegations with regard to
committing rape and anal intercourse were levelled by the victim
against the appellant/accused. At this stage, it is pointed out from the
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 5 of 10
deposition given by the Doctor (PW-2), who examined the victim, that
“it is possible that she was subjected to intercourse”. Further, another
Doctor (PW-1) has also opined that the victim “may have undergone
sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time of examination”,
which was done on 02.03.2007. Further, it was stated that there was
nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. It is also
contended that PW-2 has stated that “there was no evidence of anal
intercourse”, however, at the same time the said Doctor has further
stated that “the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out”. Learned
counsel also contended that PW-1 has specifically stated that “on
enquiry, the victim admitted to have had sexual intercourse on
27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only”. It is therefore urged
that the victim, at the very first instance, gave the details of the incident
before the Doctor.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent State therefore contended
that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness and relying solely
upon her statement, even without corroboration, conviction can be
recorded. Furthermore, in the present case, even the medical
evidence does not rule out the sexual intercourse. It is contended that
despite the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution before the trial
court, the trial court acquitted the appellant/accused and therefore, the
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 6 of 10
High Court, after considering the aforesaid relevant aspects/evidence,
rightly set aside the judgment and order rendered by the trial court.
Learned counsel, therefore, urged that no interference is required in
the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, and hence, this
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the material placed on record and the evidence
led by the prosecution, it emerges that so far as the age of the victim is
concerned, the same has not been disputed before this Court. As per
the case of the prosecution, the victim was about 15 years old on the
date of the incident. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect, if the
deposition given by the victim (PW-4) is carefully examined, it
transpires that the victim has specifically deposed before the trial court
about the manner in which the incident took place. Specific allegations
with regard to committing rape upon her by the appellant/accused and
committing unnatural sex upon her have been levelled by the victim
against the appellant/accused. The victim has specifically deposed that
when she reached her friend’s house, the appellant/accused took her
to Una in a bus. At that time, the victim had borrowed two pairs of suits
from her friend. At Una, the appellant/accused took her to the house of
his cousin (the co-accused), who was residing with his wife and
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 7 of 10
daughter. The victim has further deposed that she along with the
appellant/accused slept in one room, whereas, others slept in another
room. Further, during the night, the appellant/accused subjected the
victim to forcible sexual intercourse. Next morning, the victim changed
her clothes on the asking of the wife of the co-accused. In the evening,
the victim was told by the co-accused that her family had lodged a
report with the police, and the police were searching for them.
Thereafter, they went to the factory premises of the co-accused and
stayed there. At that place, the appellant/accused subjected the victim
to carnal intercourse. Thus, from the testimony given by the victim, it is
clear that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the
appellant/accused. From the evidence given by the victim, we are of
the view that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid deposition, the testimony of PW-1
is examined. It transpires that the said witness has specifically stated
that “on enquiry, she admitted to have had sexual intercourse on
27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only. According to her, this
was the first sexual act. She had taken bath and changed her clothes
after that act." Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of PW-1, it can be
said that when the victim was brought for medical examination, she
disclosed before the independent witness, i.e., the Doctor (PW-1),
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 8 of 10
about the sexual intercourse. It further transpires from the deposition
of PW-1 that the doctor gave a provisional opinion that the victim may
have undergone sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time
of examination. However, the final opinion was reserved. Thereafter,
while giving the final opinion, it has been stated that there was nothing
to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place.
13. Similarly, PW-2 has deposed before the court that when she
examined the victim, the victim “was conscious, cooperative and well
oriented to time, place and person”. Further, the victim said that “male
partner had anal intercourse with her on 28.02.2007 night. According
to her, it was her first such sexual act and after this, did not have another
one”. PW-2 further stated that “there was no evidence of anal
intercourse, but the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out”.
14. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition given by the Doctors, i.e.
PW-1 and PW-2, who had examined the victim, it can be said that the
medical evidence does not rule out the possibility of rape upon the
victim.
15. 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
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 9 of 10
per the case of the prosecution, she was aged about 15 years on the
date of the incident.
16. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the High
Court while passing the impugned judgment and we are of the view
that, looking at the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial
court, the view taken by the High Court was the only possible view.
Despite this, the trial court had given the benefit of doubt to the
appellant/accused and thereby acquitted him. Thus, we are of the view
that the High Court has rightly set aside the judgment passed by the
trial court qua the appellant/accused and therefore, no interference is
required in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
17. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, the appeal fails and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
.......……….…………………….J.
[MANOJ MISRA]
....….....………………………….J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
NEW DELHI,
OCTOBER 14, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 10 of 10
2025 INSC 1232
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2018
VARUN KUMAR ALIAS SONU …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. The present appeal has been directed against the final judgment
dated 18.03.2015 and the final order dated 08.04.2015 rendered by the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal Number
139 of 2008, whereby the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh
against the petitioner was allowed and the judgment dated 05.12.2007
of the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions
Trial Number 11 of 2007 was partly set aside.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.10.14
16:27:17 IST
Reason:
2.1. Girdhari Lal, uncle of the victim girl, lodged a report with the
police on the basis of which FIR No. 88 dated 28.02.2007 was registered
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 1 of 10
at Police Station, Sadar (Hamirpur) for offences punishable under
Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “the IPC”). During the course of investigation, Sections
376 and 377 of the IPC were added to the FIR. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet against the present
appellant /accused as well as the co-accused, Deepak Rai Verma.
2.2. The appellant/accused was charged for having committed
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 of the IPC,
while the co-accused was charged for committing offences under
Sections 212 and 368 of the IPC.
2.3. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in order to
establish its case before the concerned trial court. The statements of
the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) were also
recorded.
2.4. The Trial Court, by judgment and order dated 05.12.2007,
acquitted both the accused persons.
2.5. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before
the High Court against the judgment and order of acquittal rendered
by the trial court. The High Court, by way of the impugned judgment,
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 2 of 10
partly allowed the appeal against the appellant/accused and the
appellant/accused was convicted for committing offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 of the IPC. Vide the final order
dated 08.04.2015, the appellant/accused was sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and
in default of payment of fine, further undergo imprisonment for a
period of one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal qua the co-
accused, thereby confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial
court so far as the co-accused is concerned.
2.6. The appellant/accused has therefore preferred the present
appeal before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that
though the prosecution failed to prove the case against the
appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court has
wrongly convicted the appellant/accused for committing the alleged
offences. Learned counsel referred to the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses, including the deposition given by the victim (PW-4) as well
as the deposition given by the Doctor (PW-1), who had examined the
victim. It is contended that the medical evidence does not support the
version given by the victim, despite which the High Court has
convicted the appellant/accused. It is further submitted that there are
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 3 of 10
major discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, despite which the High Court has believed the
version given by the victim. At this stage, it is contended that the victim
cannot be termed as a sterling witness and therefore, the High Court
ought not to have relied upon the version given by the victim. When
there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular
evidence of the prosecution , the benefit of doubt is required to be
given to the accused and in fact the trial court has rightly passed the
order of acquittal in favour of the appellant/accused.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused further submitted that
when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence laid by the
prosecution and if the Trial Court has taken one possible view by
acquitting the accused, it was not open for the High Court to take
another possible view relying upon the evidence laid by the
prosecution. It is contended that the scope of interference in an order
of acquittal is limited, despite which the High Court has interfered with
the order of acquittal rendered by the trial court and therefore, the
impugned judgment passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has not disputed the
age of the victim. In fact, on the basis of the evidence led by the
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 4 of 10
prosecution before the trial court, the trial court determined the age of
the victim as 15 years.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused, therefore, urged that
the present appeal be allowed and thereby, the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court be set aside.
8. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent State opposed the present appeal. Learned counsel
submitted that the High Court has reappreciated the entire evidence
led by the prosecution and thereafter, given a finding that the age of
the victim was 15 years at the time of the incident and since, the said
finding is not disputed by the appellant/accused, this Court may
consider the age of the victim as 15 years. Thus, it is contended that the
victim was a minor and that too below 16 years of age at the time of the
incident.
9. Learned counsel for the State thereafter contended that the victim
(PW-4) has fully supported the case of the prosecution and in fact the
victim has narrated the manner in which the incident took place while
giving deposition before the Court. Specific allegations with regard to
committing rape and anal intercourse were levelled by the victim
against the appellant/accused. At this stage, it is pointed out from the
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 5 of 10
deposition given by the Doctor (PW-2), who examined the victim, that
“it is possible that she was subjected to intercourse”. Further, another
Doctor (PW-1) has also opined that the victim “may have undergone
sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time of examination”,
which was done on 02.03.2007. Further, it was stated that there was
nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. It is also
contended that PW-2 has stated that “there was no evidence of anal
intercourse”, however, at the same time the said Doctor has further
stated that “the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out”. Learned
counsel also contended that PW-1 has specifically stated that “on
enquiry, the victim admitted to have had sexual intercourse on
27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only”. It is therefore urged
that the victim, at the very first instance, gave the details of the incident
before the Doctor.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent State therefore contended
that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness and relying solely
upon her statement, even without corroboration, conviction can be
recorded. Furthermore, in the present case, even the medical
evidence does not rule out the sexual intercourse. It is contended that
despite the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution before the trial
court, the trial court acquitted the appellant/accused and therefore, the
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 6 of 10
High Court, after considering the aforesaid relevant aspects/evidence,
rightly set aside the judgment and order rendered by the trial court.
Learned counsel, therefore, urged that no interference is required in
the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, and hence, this
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the material placed on record and the evidence
led by the prosecution, it emerges that so far as the age of the victim is
concerned, the same has not been disputed before this Court. As per
the case of the prosecution, the victim was about 15 years old on the
date of the incident. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect, if the
deposition given by the victim (PW-4) is carefully examined, it
transpires that the victim has specifically deposed before the trial court
about the manner in which the incident took place. Specific allegations
with regard to committing rape upon her by the appellant/accused and
committing unnatural sex upon her have been levelled by the victim
against the appellant/accused. The victim has specifically deposed that
when she reached her friend’s house, the appellant/accused took her
to Una in a bus. At that time, the victim had borrowed two pairs of suits
from her friend. At Una, the appellant/accused took her to the house of
his cousin (the co-accused), who was residing with his wife and
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 7 of 10
daughter. The victim has further deposed that she along with the
appellant/accused slept in one room, whereas, others slept in another
room. Further, during the night, the appellant/accused subjected the
victim to forcible sexual intercourse. Next morning, the victim changed
her clothes on the asking of the wife of the co-accused. In the evening,
the victim was told by the co-accused that her family had lodged a
report with the police, and the police were searching for them.
Thereafter, they went to the factory premises of the co-accused and
stayed there. At that place, the appellant/accused subjected the victim
to carnal intercourse. Thus, from the testimony given by the victim, it is
clear that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the
appellant/accused. From the evidence given by the victim, we are of
the view that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid deposition, the testimony of PW-1
is examined. It transpires that the said witness has specifically stated
that “on enquiry, she admitted to have had sexual intercourse on
27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only. According to her, this
was the first sexual act. She had taken bath and changed her clothes
after that act." Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of PW-1, it can be
said that when the victim was brought for medical examination, she
disclosed before the independent witness, i.e., the Doctor (PW-1),
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 8 of 10
about the sexual intercourse. It further transpires from the deposition
of PW-1 that the doctor gave a provisional opinion that the victim may
have undergone sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time
of examination. However, the final opinion was reserved. Thereafter,
while giving the final opinion, it has been stated that there was nothing
to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place.
13. Similarly, PW-2 has deposed before the court that when she
examined the victim, the victim “was conscious, cooperative and well
oriented to time, place and person”. Further, the victim said that “male
partner had anal intercourse with her on 28.02.2007 night. According
to her, it was her first such sexual act and after this, did not have another
one”. PW-2 further stated that “there was no evidence of anal
intercourse, but the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out”.
14. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition given by the Doctors, i.e.
PW-1 and PW-2, who had examined the victim, it can be said that the
medical evidence does not rule out the possibility of rape upon the
victim.
15. 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
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 9 of 10
per the case of the prosecution, she was aged about 15 years on the
date of the incident.
16. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the High
Court while passing the impugned judgment and we are of the view
that, looking at the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial
court, the view taken by the High Court was the only possible view.
Despite this, the trial court had given the benefit of doubt to the
appellant/accused and thereby acquitted him. Thus, we are of the view
that the High Court has rightly set aside the judgment passed by the
trial court qua the appellant/accused and therefore, no interference is
required in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
17. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, the appeal fails and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
.......……….…………………….J.
[MANOJ MISRA]
....….....………………………….J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
NEW DELHI,
OCTOBER 14, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 10 of 10