Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 887
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025
SUA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J .
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Order of
Conviction and Sentence dated 02.02.1993, passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District
Ajmer, by which the Appellant-accused stands
convicted and sentenced under Section 342 (Wrongful
Confinement) for a period of 6 months' rigorous
imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 200, and in
default, 2 months' simple imprisonment; and under
Section 376 (Rape) for rigorous imprisonment of 5
years, along with a fine of Rs. 300, in default thereof,
simple imprisonment of 3 months, which stands
confirmed by the High Court vide the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.07.23
18:22:47 IST
Reason:
judgment dated 12.07.2024.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 1 of 9
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant had put forth the
arguments with regard to the discrepancies in the
prosecution case by asserting that the First Information
Report was registered after about 20 hours of the
alleged occurrence of the incident. It is further asserted
that the brother of the rape victim turned hostile and
stated in categorical terms that no incident happened
with his sister, rather, a false case was registered
against the Appellant under the influence of their
mother because of the boundary dispute of the
enclosure with his family.
3. Contradictions in the statements of the witnesses have
also been sought to be pressed into service to assert
that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference has
also been made to the statement of PW-8, the doctor
who conducted the medical examination of the victim
on the day following the incident, where it was pointed
out that there were no injuries on the external parts of
the body. Although the hymen was torn horizontally,
there was no fresh bleeding.
4. It is on this basis that the veracity of the witnesses
which led to the conviction and sentence of the
Appellant is sought to be attacked, praying for the
acquittal of the Appellant-accused.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 2 of 9
5. Another submission, which has been put forth, and
that too for the first time before this Court is that the
Appellant-accused was a juvenile at the time of the
alleged incident, which took place on 17.11.1988 at 2
o’clock in the afternoon. It is asserted that the date of
birth of the Appellant is 14.09.1972, and therefore, on
the date of the incident, his age would come to 16 years
2 months and 3 days. Since he was a juvenile, the
proceedings as held cannot sustain, especially the
sentence. Prayer has been made that an inquiry be held
to determine the age of the Appellant so that he may
get the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short “The 2000
Act”) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 (in short “The 2007 Rules”).
Learned Counsel has asserted that the benefits can be
claimed at any stage of the proceedings and even after
the conclusion of the same. Support has been sought
from the judgment of this Court in Dharambir v. State
1
(NCT of Delhi) and Another .
6. With reference to this judgment, it has further been
asserted that the case be got inquired into with regard
to the plea of juvenility, and in case the findings come
1
(2010) 5 SCC 344.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 3 of 9
in favour of the Appellant, he be granted the benefit of
the 2000 Act.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other
hand, has asserted that the judgments passed by the
courts below are based upon proper appreciation of the
oral evidence as have been led by the prosecution, as
also the medical evidence. The factum of rape having
been committed upon the victim is duly supported by
the prosecutrix herself in her statement, where she had
clearly detailed out the offense having been committed
and the manner in which the Appellant had forced
himself upon her.
8. It would not be out of way to mention here that the
victim was 11 years of age at the time of the incident
when she had gone to the Bada after taking water from
the school handpump on 17.11.1988 at about 2:00 PM,
Appellant was already present in the Bada and was
hiding behind the door. On the victim entering the
Bada , he threw her down and committed rape upon
her. Since she was an 11 year old child and was alone
in her Bada , she waited for her mother to come, who
came in the evening at about 5 PM when she narrated
the entire story to her. Since in the month of November,
the days are short and the police station was at a
distance of 26 kms from the house of the victim. They
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 4 of 9
could not approach the police for recording their
complaint. Thus, it was in the morning, at around 8-9
AM, that the FIR was lodged at the police station, where
both the victim and her mother had gone there. The
delay had been duly explained. Therefore, no benefit
can be granted to the Appellant. The same day, i.e.,
18.11.1988, the medical examination of the victim was
conducted. The potency test of the accused-appellant
was conducted by PW-12 Dr. Ramaprakash Garg,
which established his capability of having sexual
intercourse.
9. The aspect with regard to Shaitaan Singh, the person
who is said to have seen the accused running away
from the spot after the incident, although has turned
hostile, but that would not confer any benefit on
defence as he was not an eyewitness. The victim has
stood firm in her cross-examination which is supported
by the medical evidence as submitted by the State
Counsel as recorded above apart for the other official
witnesses. Another aspect which goes in favour of the
prosecution is that the ghagra (long skirt) worn by the
victim, as well as the underpants of the accused, which
fortifies the commission of the offence.
10. As regards the reliance placed on the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix for conviction, it is well settled by this
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 5 of 9
Court in Mohd. Imran Khan v. State Government
2
(NCT of Delhi) that a conviction can be sustained on
the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is
found to be credible and trustworthy. This principle
was further reiterated in Phool Singh v. State of
3 4
Madhya Pradesh and Ganesan v. State , where it
was held that corroboration is not a sine qua non for
conviction in sexual offence cases. Thus, the settled
legal position is that the statement of the prosecutrix,
if worthy of credence, requires no corroboration and
can form the sole basis for conviction. Furthermore, in
the present case, the prosecution’s case is not founded
solely on the testimony of the victim; rather, it is amply
supported by the statements of other witnesses and
corroborating medical evidence, all of which collectively
establish the case of the prosecution.
11. Therefore, the findings as recorded with regard to the
conviction of the Appellant stand duly established
beyond doubt. The impugned judgments, therefore,
cannot be faulted with.
12. The plea of the Appellant that he was a juvenile when
the incident had taken place, led to the passing of an
order dated 20.01.2025, which reads as follows:
2
(2011) 10 SCC 192
3
(2022) 2 SCC 74
4
(2020) 10 SCC 573
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 6 of 9
1. The petitioner claims that he
was under sixteen years of age at the
time of the offence.
2. We, therefore, find that it would
be appropriate that the District and
Sessions Judge having jurisdiction at
Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan conducts
an inquiry into the claim of the
petitioner, as to whether on the date of
the commission of the offence, he was
juvenile or not.
3. The same shall be done in
accordance with the guidelines laid
down by this Court in the case of
Abuzar Hossain v. State of West
Bengal, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 489.
4. The said report shall be
submitted within a period of eight
weeks from today.
5. List after eight weeks.”
13. It is in pursuance of the said order that the Inquiry
Report stands submitted by the Additional Sessions
Judge No. 1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
14. The procedure has been duly followed as provided for
under the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules. On the basis
of the statements of the witnesses and the documents
produced including the admission record in Class-I of
the Government Higher Secondary School, Baharu,
dated 16.05.1980, as well as other school records
where his date of birth is reflected as 14.09.1972 which
has been accepted to be correct. The findings with
regard to his age at the time of commission of the
offence has been returned as 16 years 2 months and 3
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 7 of 9
days on the date of the commission of the crime, i.e.,
17.11.1988, with the date of birth of the Appellant
being 14.09.1972. The Appellant was therefore a
juvenile on the date of commission of the crime.
15. As regards the opposition by the State with regard to
the plea having been taken for the first time before this
Court that the Appellant being a juvenile being not
permissible, the same needs to be merely mentioned to
be rejected in light of the authoritative judgments
passed by this Court starting from Hari Ram v. State
5
of Rajasthan and Another followed by Dharambir
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (Supra), where it
has been categorically held that the plea of juvenility
can be raised before any court and has to be recognized
at any stage, even after disposal of the case. It has
further been held that such a claim is required to be
determined in terms of the provisions contained in the
2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., the
2007 Rules, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on
or before the date of commencement of the 2000 Act,
as in the present case. The relevant factor, therefore, is
that the accused, to be a juvenile, should have not
completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of
5
(2009) 13 SCC 211
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 8 of 9
the offense, which entitles him to the benefit of the
2000 Act.
16. In the light of the above, the provisions as contained in
the 2000 Act would apply. Consequently, the sentence
as imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High
Court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot
sustain. We order accordingly.
17. The case is referred to the Board for passing
appropriate orders in light of Sections 15 and 16 of the
2000 Act. The Appellant is directed to appear before the
th
Board on 15 September 2025.
18. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
……...……….……………………..CJI.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 9 of 9
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025
SUA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J .
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Order of
Conviction and Sentence dated 02.02.1993, passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District
Ajmer, by which the Appellant-accused stands
convicted and sentenced under Section 342 (Wrongful
Confinement) for a period of 6 months' rigorous
imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 200, and in
default, 2 months' simple imprisonment; and under
Section 376 (Rape) for rigorous imprisonment of 5
years, along with a fine of Rs. 300, in default thereof,
simple imprisonment of 3 months, which stands
confirmed by the High Court vide the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.07.23
18:22:47 IST
Reason:
judgment dated 12.07.2024.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 1 of 9
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant had put forth the
arguments with regard to the discrepancies in the
prosecution case by asserting that the First Information
Report was registered after about 20 hours of the
alleged occurrence of the incident. It is further asserted
that the brother of the rape victim turned hostile and
stated in categorical terms that no incident happened
with his sister, rather, a false case was registered
against the Appellant under the influence of their
mother because of the boundary dispute of the
enclosure with his family.
3. Contradictions in the statements of the witnesses have
also been sought to be pressed into service to assert
that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference has
also been made to the statement of PW-8, the doctor
who conducted the medical examination of the victim
on the day following the incident, where it was pointed
out that there were no injuries on the external parts of
the body. Although the hymen was torn horizontally,
there was no fresh bleeding.
4. It is on this basis that the veracity of the witnesses
which led to the conviction and sentence of the
Appellant is sought to be attacked, praying for the
acquittal of the Appellant-accused.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 2 of 9
5. Another submission, which has been put forth, and
that too for the first time before this Court is that the
Appellant-accused was a juvenile at the time of the
alleged incident, which took place on 17.11.1988 at 2
o’clock in the afternoon. It is asserted that the date of
birth of the Appellant is 14.09.1972, and therefore, on
the date of the incident, his age would come to 16 years
2 months and 3 days. Since he was a juvenile, the
proceedings as held cannot sustain, especially the
sentence. Prayer has been made that an inquiry be held
to determine the age of the Appellant so that he may
get the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short “The 2000
Act”) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 (in short “The 2007 Rules”).
Learned Counsel has asserted that the benefits can be
claimed at any stage of the proceedings and even after
the conclusion of the same. Support has been sought
from the judgment of this Court in Dharambir v. State
1
(NCT of Delhi) and Another .
6. With reference to this judgment, it has further been
asserted that the case be got inquired into with regard
to the plea of juvenility, and in case the findings come
1
(2010) 5 SCC 344.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 3 of 9
in favour of the Appellant, he be granted the benefit of
the 2000 Act.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other
hand, has asserted that the judgments passed by the
courts below are based upon proper appreciation of the
oral evidence as have been led by the prosecution, as
also the medical evidence. The factum of rape having
been committed upon the victim is duly supported by
the prosecutrix herself in her statement, where she had
clearly detailed out the offense having been committed
and the manner in which the Appellant had forced
himself upon her.
8. It would not be out of way to mention here that the
victim was 11 years of age at the time of the incident
when she had gone to the Bada after taking water from
the school handpump on 17.11.1988 at about 2:00 PM,
Appellant was already present in the Bada and was
hiding behind the door. On the victim entering the
Bada , he threw her down and committed rape upon
her. Since she was an 11 year old child and was alone
in her Bada , she waited for her mother to come, who
came in the evening at about 5 PM when she narrated
the entire story to her. Since in the month of November,
the days are short and the police station was at a
distance of 26 kms from the house of the victim. They
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 4 of 9
could not approach the police for recording their
complaint. Thus, it was in the morning, at around 8-9
AM, that the FIR was lodged at the police station, where
both the victim and her mother had gone there. The
delay had been duly explained. Therefore, no benefit
can be granted to the Appellant. The same day, i.e.,
18.11.1988, the medical examination of the victim was
conducted. The potency test of the accused-appellant
was conducted by PW-12 Dr. Ramaprakash Garg,
which established his capability of having sexual
intercourse.
9. The aspect with regard to Shaitaan Singh, the person
who is said to have seen the accused running away
from the spot after the incident, although has turned
hostile, but that would not confer any benefit on
defence as he was not an eyewitness. The victim has
stood firm in her cross-examination which is supported
by the medical evidence as submitted by the State
Counsel as recorded above apart for the other official
witnesses. Another aspect which goes in favour of the
prosecution is that the ghagra (long skirt) worn by the
victim, as well as the underpants of the accused, which
fortifies the commission of the offence.
10. As regards the reliance placed on the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix for conviction, it is well settled by this
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 5 of 9
Court in Mohd. Imran Khan v. State Government
2
(NCT of Delhi) that a conviction can be sustained on
the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is
found to be credible and trustworthy. This principle
was further reiterated in Phool Singh v. State of
3 4
Madhya Pradesh and Ganesan v. State , where it
was held that corroboration is not a sine qua non for
conviction in sexual offence cases. Thus, the settled
legal position is that the statement of the prosecutrix,
if worthy of credence, requires no corroboration and
can form the sole basis for conviction. Furthermore, in
the present case, the prosecution’s case is not founded
solely on the testimony of the victim; rather, it is amply
supported by the statements of other witnesses and
corroborating medical evidence, all of which collectively
establish the case of the prosecution.
11. Therefore, the findings as recorded with regard to the
conviction of the Appellant stand duly established
beyond doubt. The impugned judgments, therefore,
cannot be faulted with.
12. The plea of the Appellant that he was a juvenile when
the incident had taken place, led to the passing of an
order dated 20.01.2025, which reads as follows:
2
(2011) 10 SCC 192
3
(2022) 2 SCC 74
4
(2020) 10 SCC 573
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 6 of 9
1. The petitioner claims that he
was under sixteen years of age at the
time of the offence.
2. We, therefore, find that it would
be appropriate that the District and
Sessions Judge having jurisdiction at
Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan conducts
an inquiry into the claim of the
petitioner, as to whether on the date of
the commission of the offence, he was
juvenile or not.
3. The same shall be done in
accordance with the guidelines laid
down by this Court in the case of
Abuzar Hossain v. State of West
Bengal, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 489.
4. The said report shall be
submitted within a period of eight
weeks from today.
5. List after eight weeks.”
13. It is in pursuance of the said order that the Inquiry
Report stands submitted by the Additional Sessions
Judge No. 1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
14. The procedure has been duly followed as provided for
under the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules. On the basis
of the statements of the witnesses and the documents
produced including the admission record in Class-I of
the Government Higher Secondary School, Baharu,
dated 16.05.1980, as well as other school records
where his date of birth is reflected as 14.09.1972 which
has been accepted to be correct. The findings with
regard to his age at the time of commission of the
offence has been returned as 16 years 2 months and 3
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 7 of 9
days on the date of the commission of the crime, i.e.,
17.11.1988, with the date of birth of the Appellant
being 14.09.1972. The Appellant was therefore a
juvenile on the date of commission of the crime.
15. As regards the opposition by the State with regard to
the plea having been taken for the first time before this
Court that the Appellant being a juvenile being not
permissible, the same needs to be merely mentioned to
be rejected in light of the authoritative judgments
passed by this Court starting from Hari Ram v. State
5
of Rajasthan and Another followed by Dharambir
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (Supra), where it
has been categorically held that the plea of juvenility
can be raised before any court and has to be recognized
at any stage, even after disposal of the case. It has
further been held that such a claim is required to be
determined in terms of the provisions contained in the
2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., the
2007 Rules, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on
or before the date of commencement of the 2000 Act,
as in the present case. The relevant factor, therefore, is
that the accused, to be a juvenile, should have not
completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of
5
(2009) 13 SCC 211
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 8 of 9
the offense, which entitles him to the benefit of the
2000 Act.
16. In the light of the above, the provisions as contained in
the 2000 Act would apply. Consequently, the sentence
as imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High
Court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot
sustain. We order accordingly.
17. The case is referred to the Board for passing
appropriate orders in light of Sections 15 and 16 of the
2000 Act. The Appellant is directed to appear before the
th
Board on 15 September 2025.
18. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
……...……….……………………..CJI.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2695 OF 2025 Page 9 of 9