Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 331
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2097/2014
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SURYA KANT, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the
criminal appeal preferred by the respondent had been
allowed. The High Court, while acquitting him under
Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short, the “IPC”), has set aside the judgment and order
of the Trial Court dated 02.01.2009, holding the
respondent guilty of the aforementioned offences with a
sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Signature Not Verified
2. We have heard learned counsel for the State at a
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.03.06
17:12:17 IST
Reason:
considerable length. The record has been perused.
1
3. The prosecution case is that on 13.08.2007, the
prosecutrix (PW-10) through her father lodged FIR No.
346/2007 under Sections 452 and 376 of IPC at Police
Station Sadar Hamirpur against the accused-respondent. It
was alleged therein that when her parents (PW-8 & PW-9)
had gone to the hospital for purchasing medicines around
noon, the respondent came to the varandah of her house
and asked for a match box. Finding her alone, the accused
allegedly caught her from the arm and took her inside the
room. Thereafter, he forcibly committed sexually
intercourse with her. This incident was apparently
narrated by the prosecutrix to her parents when they
returned, who subsequently lodged the FIR.
4. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr.
Sunita Galodha (PW-7) at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur,
where she was found to be of unsound mind as she did not
cooperate in her medical examination. As the factum of
sexual intercourse could not be ascertained, the
prosecutrix was further referred to the RPMC Hospital at
Tanda (Dharamshala) for the opinion of their Gynecologist
and Psychiatrist. However, the father of the prosecutrix
did not allow for any medical examination to happen.
Nevertheless, the initial vaginal swab collected by the
police was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for
medical analysis.
2
5. The Trial Court on the basis of examination of
prosecution evidence, consisting of 14 witnesses besides
statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, convicted him under Sections
452 and 376 of IPC; and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years, besides the requisite fine.
6. Against this, the respondent preferred an appeal
before the High Court, which has been allowed vide the
impugned judgment. The High Court has succinctly
demonstrated some of the glaring lacunae in the
prosecution case, which even the learned State counsel
before us, is unable to satisfactorily justify. We say so
for the reasons set out below.
7. The present case is one where the mother of the
prosecutrix (PW-9) entered the witness box and
unfortunately did not support prosecution case. She
completely denied that any occurrence, similar to the one
described in the FIR, ever took place. She was,
accordingly, declared hostile and cross-examined by the
Public Prosecutor. Of course, nothing material could be
extracted from her cross-examination.
8. The father of the prosecutrix (PW-8) also entered
the witness box, and it is an admitted fact that he, too,
made evasive statements, largely restricted to the
narration of the events preceding the trial. We may note
at this junction, that his statement fails to explain the
3
delay in reporting the matter, and the lodging of the
FIR. While he submitted that he reported the alleged
incident to the police as soon as he was apprised of the
same, we are constrained to note that the such assertion
does not inspire much confidence. We say so, keeping in
mind the statement made by Nirmala Devi, Pradhan of Gram
Panchayat (PW-1), who simply deposed that the father of
the prosecutrix came to her house after three days of the
incident, i.e. on 13.08.2007, and informed her about the
occurrence. She then advised him to report the matter to
the police, he finally went and lodged the police report.
While it is trite law that unexplained delay in lodging
FIRs is commonly considered fatal to the prosecution’s
1
case, we observe that in the instant case the delay was
never even acknowledged – much less explained. Thus, it
is our considered opinion that the necessary benefit of
such an omission must accrue to the accused-respondent.
9. The other significant evidence on record comprises
the statement of Dr. Sunita Galodha of Regional Hospital
of Hameerpur, who issued the medico-legal certificate
(Ext.PW7/B) based on the Chemical Examiner’s Report
(Ext.PW6/A). The High Court has referred to the statement
of Dr. Sunita Galodha and both the above-mentioned
reports in extenso, in paragraph 10 of the impugned
judgment, which reads as under:
1 Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170; Parminder Kaur v. State of
Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811; Fateh Chand v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 543;
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550.
4
“10. Each case has to be determined on its own
circumstances and law laid down by the Apex
Court with regard to delay has to be applied to
the given facts. Coming to the medical
evidence, we find that prosecutrix was examined
by Dr. Sunita Galodha (PW-7) who issued· MLC
(Ex.PW7/B) based on the chemical examiner's
report (Ex.PW6/A). This witness found that
prosecutrix was having a normal gait. There
were no marks of injury on any part of her
body. Clothes which she was wearing had been
washed and changed. However, when it came for
physical examination of her private parts,
prosecutrix did not co-operate. She did not
allow even a tip of a little finger to be
inserted inside her vagina. Also no blood or
semen was found on her private parts or the
vaginal swab. Since prosecutrix resisted
physical examination, including that of hymen,
this witness could not give any final opinion
about the commission of sexual intercourse. The
report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also
does not link the accused to the alleged crime.
Semen was not found on the clothes of the
prosecutrix or the vaginal swab. Eventually the
ground that blood & semen was not found on the
pubic hair & vaginal slides of Veeja Kumari.
Blood in track was found on swab, but semen
could not be detected on exhibit. Further, the
opinion regarding occurrence of act, as asked
in police docket cannot be given as the girl
has been- referred to RPMC, Dharamshala.”
10. The afore-extracted portions make it amply clear
that the prosecutrix and her parents themselves never
fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby
adversely impacting the credibility of their version of
events. It is a well-settled proposition of law that non-
allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape-
2
victim raises negative inferences against them. We cannot
ascribe any good reason to the complete lack of
2
Assessment of the Criminal Justice System in Response to Sexual Offences, In
re, (2020) 18 SCC 540; Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.
5
assistance that the complainants tendered to the
authorities, apart from their contradictory stances
before the Court. We are further doubtless in this regard
as the High Court, while discussing the prosecutrix’s
testimony, has come to the invariable conclusion that she
was not mentally unsound – given that she was able to
clearly comprehend the question and answer during the
cross-examination.
11. As regard to the age of the prosecutrix, she has
categorically admitted as has been otherwise proved that
she was 19 years old at the time of the alleged
occurrence. The prosecution has not opposed this factum
as well.
12. We are cognizant of the jurisdictional limitations
that normally restrict interference in settled criminal
3
appeals, especially wherein the High Court has acquitted
the accused. It is equally well-established that save and
except where this Court finds that the conclusion drawn
by the High Court is based upon a complete misreading of
the evidence on record, or where its conclusions are so
perverse that the same cannot be sustained, then only
might a judgment of acquittal warrant interference. On
the contrary, in the instant case the High Court has
microscopically examined the entire evidence before
3 Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731; Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of
Gujarat, (1976) 1 SCC 6; Gosu Jayarami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011)
11 SCC 766; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dharmendra Singh, (1999) 8 SCC 325.
6
firmly opining that the present accused-respondent
deserves the benefit of the doubt.
13. Consequently, we refuse to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. The
appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
..........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..........................J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
February 20, 2025
7
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).2097/2014
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU Respondent(s)
Date : 20-02-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR
Mr. Sarthak Chiller, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Lochav, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR
Mrs. Beena Victor, Adv.
Ms. M. Priya, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Soni, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
2. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed reportalbe judgment is placed on the file)
8
2025 INSC 331
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2097/2014
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SURYA KANT, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the
criminal appeal preferred by the respondent had been
allowed. The High Court, while acquitting him under
Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short, the “IPC”), has set aside the judgment and order
of the Trial Court dated 02.01.2009, holding the
respondent guilty of the aforementioned offences with a
sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Signature Not Verified
2. We have heard learned counsel for the State at a
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.03.06
17:12:17 IST
Reason:
considerable length. The record has been perused.
1
3. The prosecution case is that on 13.08.2007, the
prosecutrix (PW-10) through her father lodged FIR No.
346/2007 under Sections 452 and 376 of IPC at Police
Station Sadar Hamirpur against the accused-respondent. It
was alleged therein that when her parents (PW-8 & PW-9)
had gone to the hospital for purchasing medicines around
noon, the respondent came to the varandah of her house
and asked for a match box. Finding her alone, the accused
allegedly caught her from the arm and took her inside the
room. Thereafter, he forcibly committed sexually
intercourse with her. This incident was apparently
narrated by the prosecutrix to her parents when they
returned, who subsequently lodged the FIR.
4. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr.
Sunita Galodha (PW-7) at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur,
where she was found to be of unsound mind as she did not
cooperate in her medical examination. As the factum of
sexual intercourse could not be ascertained, the
prosecutrix was further referred to the RPMC Hospital at
Tanda (Dharamshala) for the opinion of their Gynecologist
and Psychiatrist. However, the father of the prosecutrix
did not allow for any medical examination to happen.
Nevertheless, the initial vaginal swab collected by the
police was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for
medical analysis.
2
5. The Trial Court on the basis of examination of
prosecution evidence, consisting of 14 witnesses besides
statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, convicted him under Sections
452 and 376 of IPC; and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years, besides the requisite fine.
6. Against this, the respondent preferred an appeal
before the High Court, which has been allowed vide the
impugned judgment. The High Court has succinctly
demonstrated some of the glaring lacunae in the
prosecution case, which even the learned State counsel
before us, is unable to satisfactorily justify. We say so
for the reasons set out below.
7. The present case is one where the mother of the
prosecutrix (PW-9) entered the witness box and
unfortunately did not support prosecution case. She
completely denied that any occurrence, similar to the one
described in the FIR, ever took place. She was,
accordingly, declared hostile and cross-examined by the
Public Prosecutor. Of course, nothing material could be
extracted from her cross-examination.
8. The father of the prosecutrix (PW-8) also entered
the witness box, and it is an admitted fact that he, too,
made evasive statements, largely restricted to the
narration of the events preceding the trial. We may note
at this junction, that his statement fails to explain the
3
delay in reporting the matter, and the lodging of the
FIR. While he submitted that he reported the alleged
incident to the police as soon as he was apprised of the
same, we are constrained to note that the such assertion
does not inspire much confidence. We say so, keeping in
mind the statement made by Nirmala Devi, Pradhan of Gram
Panchayat (PW-1), who simply deposed that the father of
the prosecutrix came to her house after three days of the
incident, i.e. on 13.08.2007, and informed her about the
occurrence. She then advised him to report the matter to
the police, he finally went and lodged the police report.
While it is trite law that unexplained delay in lodging
FIRs is commonly considered fatal to the prosecution’s
1
case, we observe that in the instant case the delay was
never even acknowledged – much less explained. Thus, it
is our considered opinion that the necessary benefit of
such an omission must accrue to the accused-respondent.
9. The other significant evidence on record comprises
the statement of Dr. Sunita Galodha of Regional Hospital
of Hameerpur, who issued the medico-legal certificate
(Ext.PW7/B) based on the Chemical Examiner’s Report
(Ext.PW6/A). The High Court has referred to the statement
of Dr. Sunita Galodha and both the above-mentioned
reports in extenso, in paragraph 10 of the impugned
judgment, which reads as under:
1 Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170; Parminder Kaur v. State of
Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811; Fateh Chand v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 543;
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550.
4
“10. Each case has to be determined on its own
circumstances and law laid down by the Apex
Court with regard to delay has to be applied to
the given facts. Coming to the medical
evidence, we find that prosecutrix was examined
by Dr. Sunita Galodha (PW-7) who issued· MLC
(Ex.PW7/B) based on the chemical examiner's
report (Ex.PW6/A). This witness found that
prosecutrix was having a normal gait. There
were no marks of injury on any part of her
body. Clothes which she was wearing had been
washed and changed. However, when it came for
physical examination of her private parts,
prosecutrix did not co-operate. She did not
allow even a tip of a little finger to be
inserted inside her vagina. Also no blood or
semen was found on her private parts or the
vaginal swab. Since prosecutrix resisted
physical examination, including that of hymen,
this witness could not give any final opinion
about the commission of sexual intercourse. The
report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also
does not link the accused to the alleged crime.
Semen was not found on the clothes of the
prosecutrix or the vaginal swab. Eventually the
ground that blood & semen was not found on the
pubic hair & vaginal slides of Veeja Kumari.
Blood in track was found on swab, but semen
could not be detected on exhibit. Further, the
opinion regarding occurrence of act, as asked
in police docket cannot be given as the girl
has been- referred to RPMC, Dharamshala.”
10. The afore-extracted portions make it amply clear
that the prosecutrix and her parents themselves never
fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby
adversely impacting the credibility of their version of
events. It is a well-settled proposition of law that non-
allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape-
2
victim raises negative inferences against them. We cannot
ascribe any good reason to the complete lack of
2
Assessment of the Criminal Justice System in Response to Sexual Offences, In
re, (2020) 18 SCC 540; Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.
5
assistance that the complainants tendered to the
authorities, apart from their contradictory stances
before the Court. We are further doubtless in this regard
as the High Court, while discussing the prosecutrix’s
testimony, has come to the invariable conclusion that she
was not mentally unsound – given that she was able to
clearly comprehend the question and answer during the
cross-examination.
11. As regard to the age of the prosecutrix, she has
categorically admitted as has been otherwise proved that
she was 19 years old at the time of the alleged
occurrence. The prosecution has not opposed this factum
as well.
12. We are cognizant of the jurisdictional limitations
that normally restrict interference in settled criminal
3
appeals, especially wherein the High Court has acquitted
the accused. It is equally well-established that save and
except where this Court finds that the conclusion drawn
by the High Court is based upon a complete misreading of
the evidence on record, or where its conclusions are so
perverse that the same cannot be sustained, then only
might a judgment of acquittal warrant interference. On
the contrary, in the instant case the High Court has
microscopically examined the entire evidence before
3 Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731; Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of
Gujarat, (1976) 1 SCC 6; Gosu Jayarami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011)
11 SCC 766; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dharmendra Singh, (1999) 8 SCC 325.
6
firmly opining that the present accused-respondent
deserves the benefit of the doubt.
13. Consequently, we refuse to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. The
appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
..........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..........................J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
February 20, 2025
7
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).2097/2014
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU Respondent(s)
Date : 20-02-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR
Mr. Sarthak Chiller, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Lochav, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR
Mrs. Beena Victor, Adv.
Ms. M. Priya, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Soni, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
2. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed reportalbe judgment is placed on the file)
8