STATE OF HP vs Sohan Singh
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
1
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. : 226 of 2025
Reserved on : 12.10.2026
Date of decision : 16.10.2026
Uploaded on : 16.10.2026
State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant.
Versus
Sohan Singh & Anr. …Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhupesh Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate
General.
For the Respondents : Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate (Legal
Aid Counsel) for respondent No.1.
Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Bhupesh Sharma, Judge
This appeal has been filed by the State of
Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal dated
30.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Special Court, (POCSO), Kangra at
Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Sessions case No.42-
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
B/VII/2022,(CIS Reg. No.202 of 2022), titled, ‘State of H.P.
vs. Sohan Singh & Anr.’, whereby, the respondent Sohan
Singh (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘A-1) and respondent
Balbir Kumar (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘A-2’) have
been acquitted of the charges for commission of offence(s)
punishable under Sections 376, 342 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the
Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The accused persons Sohan Singh (A-1) and Balbir
Kumar (A-2) were sent to face trial for commission of
offence(s) punishable under Sections 376, 342 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6 and
8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, by the SHO, Police Station Baijnath, in case FIR
No.144 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022. The accused persons were
prosecuted for the said offence(s) and were subsequently
acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment
dated 30.10.2026 in Sessions case No. 42-B/VII/2022, titled,
‘State of H.P. vs. Sohan Singh & Anr.
3. Case of the prosecution, as set out against the
accused persons, in brief, is as under:-
3
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
3(a). On 16.09.2022, during the day time, at Village
Burli Kothi (Paprola) Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.
the accused Sohan Singh (A-1) along with his co-accused
Balbir Singh (A-2) in furtherance of their common intention,
sexually assaulted (committed penetrative sexual assault)
and abused the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’, minor, aged
nine years (Date of Birth 01.11.2012), after wrongfully
confining her in a room in her house. The accused Sohan
Singh (A-1) after the offence was apprehended by the public
at the spot, whereas, accused Balbir Kumar (A-2) fled away.
3(b). Information regarding the incident was conveyed to
the mother of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’, by her
Landlord Surender Kumar when she was at Taragarh. She
returned and met her daughter, who disclosed the incident in
detail and thereafter, the matter was reported at Police
Station Baijnath by filing a written complaint.
3(c). On the basis of disclosure of the facts enumerated
in the complaint, case FIR No.144 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022
under Sections 376, 511 IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the
Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was
4
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
registered against the accused and his co-accused at Police
Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.
3(d). On the basis of the facts disclosed by the
complainant ‘R’ (mother of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’)
in the complaint and pursuant to registration of case FIR
No.144 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022, the statement of the
Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’, was recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and thereafter, she was sent for medical examination
to Civil Hospital, Baijnath.
3(e). On the basis of preliminary evidence collected by
the Investigating Officer, the accused Sohan Singh (A-1) was
arrested on 16.09.2022 at 05:00 P.M, at Police Station
Baijnath.
3(f). On 17.09.2022, Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’, also
got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before
st
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Baijnath, District
Kangra, H.P.
3(g). Thereafter, Investigating Officer Inspector Pooja
Kaundal conducted the spot inspection, took photographs of
the spot and prepared the spot map. During the course of
investigation, date of birth certificate of Victim
5
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ was procured and she was also
subjected to counselling by the Councellor, District Child
Welfare Committee, Kangra, at Dharmashala. The samples of
Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ preserved by the Medical Officer
during her medical examination were sent for analysis to the
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Dharamshala. She was
also sent to gynecologist's opinion at Civil Hospital, Baijnath
and she was also subjected to Psychiatric evaluation at Dr.
Rajender Prasad Medical College and Hospital, Tanda.
3(h). On the receipt of the result from RFSL
Dharamshala and on the basis of the final medical opinion,
the accused Sohan Singh (A-1) and accused Balbir Kumar (A-
2) were found to have committed the offence(s) under
Sections 376 and 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, final report under Section
173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed against them before learned
Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.
4. The accused Sohan Singh (A-1) and his co-accused
Balbir Kumar (A-2) were charged for the commission of
offence(s) punishable under Sections 376, 342 read with
6
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court
(POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. vide
order dated 24.05.2023.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the
allegations and accusations against the accused persons
examined 17 witnesses. The Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ was
examined as PW-2 and her mother/ complainant ‘R’ was
examined as PW-1. Apart from this, the prosecution has also
examined witness of fact namely Jugnu as PW-10, Surender
Kumar (Landlord) as PW-11. Medical Officers associated
during the course of investigation i.e. Dr. Indu, Medical
Officer, Civil Hospital Baijnath as PW4, Dr. Abha Sharma,
Gynecologist, Civil Hospital, Baijnath as PW-5 and Dr. Ankita
Thakur, Senior Resident in the Department of Psychiatry, Dr.
RPGMC, Tanda as PW-16.
6. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution
are PW-3 Ms. Sanyogita Devi, Counsellor, District Child
Protection Unit, Kangra at Dharamshala, Sanjeev Rana as
PW-6, LC Tanu No.843 as PW-7, HHC Malkiyat Singh No.539
7
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
as PW8, C. Gulshan No.600 as PW-9, Inspector Surinder
Thakur as PW-13, HC Vinod Kumar No.73 as PW-14, SI
Jagdish Kumar as PW-15, ASI Kiran Kumar as PW-17, who
are formal in nature. Investigating Officer, Inspector Pooja
Kaundal has been examined as PW-12.
7. Prosecution apart from leading the aforesaid oral
evidence has also heavily relied upon the documentary
evidence placed on record, which was collected against the
accused persons during the course of investigation. The
material documents which are placed on record are the
complaint/application for registration of case Ext.P-1/PW1,
copy of FIR No.144 dated 16.09.2022 Ext.P-2/PW1, MLC of
the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ Ext.P-3/PW1, statement of
the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. Ext.P-9/PW2, MLCs of the accused persons Ext.PB
and Ext.PC, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory results
Ext.P-31/PW13 and Ext.P-32/PW13.
8. The substratum of the prosecution case was put
to the accused persons in their statements under Section 313
Cr.P.C. recorded by the learned Trial Court on 04.10.2024.
The accused persons denied the prosecution case in its
8
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
entirety by raising defence of denial simpliciter and false
implication at the behest of the complainant ‘R’.
9. The learned trial Court after considering the
material and evidence on record did not find the accused
persons involved in the alleged incident. The learned trial
Court did not find the statement of the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’, wholly reliable to secure the conviction
of the accused persons. Apart from this, it was also found
that the medical evidence failed to corroborate the
prosecution case and the other hearsay evidence was also not
reliable, accordingly, both the accused persons were
acquitted vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated
30.10.2024 in Sessions Trial case No.42-B/VII/2022, titled,
‘State of H.P. vs. Sohan Singh & Anr.’
10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment of acquittal dated 30.10.2024, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court,
(POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in
Sessions case No.42-B/VII/2022, titled, ‘State of H.P. vs.
Sohan Singh & Anr.’, the State of Himachal Pradesh is in
appeal before this Court on various grounds:
9
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
Grounds of appeal:
That the impugned judgment passed by the
learned trial Court is wrong on facts as well
as on law, hence, liable to be set aside.
That the impugned judgment is based on
hypothetical reasonings, surmises and
conjectures, hence, liable to be set aside.
That the learned trial Court has appreciated
the evidence in a slip-shod manner and
acquitted the accused persons on the flimsy
grounds.
That the learned trial Court has not only
failed to view the prosecution evidence in its
proper perspective, but at the same time has
set unrealistic standards to evaluate the
direct and cogent prosecution evidence. The
reasoning of the learned trial Court is
manifestly unreasonable and unsustainable
as there was no warrant at all for the learned
trial Court to discard the well reasoned and
consistent testimonies of prosecution
witnesses and no reason has been assigned
for discarding the version of the official
witnesses.
That the learned trial Court has wrongly held
that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubts, in fact, by
the statement of prosecution witnesses, the
case of the prosecution stands proved beyond
shadow of reasonable doubts.
That the learned trial Court has not
appreciated the impugned judgment in its
right perspective i.e. the statements of the
victim and PW-10 Jugnu, who had seen the
10
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
accused Sohan Singh on the spot who was
caught by the persons of the locality and was
trying to abscond, and has wrongly acquitted
the accused persons, hence, the judgment
passed by the learned trial Court deserves to
be set aside.
That the mother of the victim has specifically
stated that victim had disclosed to her that
other person who came with the accused gave
money to the brother of the victim and had
sent him to bring cold-drink and the other
accused had closed her mouth with his
hands. Further, the learned trial Court has
not appreciated that the mother of the victim
has stated entire facts of the occurrence as
disclosed to her by the child victim, but
rather, has wrongly relied on the minor
contradictions made by the mother of the
victim at the time of deposition in the trial
Court, hence, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside.
That the learned trial Court has fell into error
to hold that the statement of the victim is
improvement on the content of application
Ext.P-1/PW1 and also appears to be after
thought version of the victim, but the learned
trial Court has not appreciated that the
victim in her statement recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated the
role of both the accused persons in the
commission of offence. Learned trial Court
has wrongly come to the conclusion that the
victim has not stated in the examination in
chief that the accused pressed her breast and
further wrongly concluded that the same to
be a contradiction in the Court as made
11
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
before the learned Magistrate under section
164 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside.
That the learned trial Court also fell into error
in coming to the conclusion that the victim
PW-2 during the cross-examination has
stated that she did not know the accused
persons prior to the alleged incident and the
mother of the child victim PW-1 too has
stated the same but the IP Pooja Kaundal has
admitted that the accused persons were
already known to the mother of the victim.
Learned trial Court has wrongly concluded
that this contradiction has been made the
prosecution case doubtful. Learned trial
Court has not appreciated that the accused
No.1 Sohan Singh was caught by the persons
of the locality after the incident and was
handed over to the police, who thereafter was
medically examined and the injuries on his
person corroborate the version of the victi
PW-2, witnesses PW-10 and PW-11. Learned
trial Court has also not appreciated that
Sohan Singh accused was identified by the
victim from the photograph pasted on the
conviction slip, hence, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
That the learned trial Court has wrongly
arrived at the conclusion that the statement
made by the victim to the counselor PW3 is
also improved version of the victim as there is
nothing in the application Ext.P-1/PW-1 that
the victim was being moved to the roof by
both the accused persons. The trial Court has
totally ignored the testimony of the victim and
other witnesses, who had completely
12
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
corroborated the prosecution case and also
identified the accused persons.
That the learned trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence in the right
perspective and has wrongly acquitted the
accused persons and wrongly concluded that
the neighbour/ aunt to whom the incident
was narrated by the victim have not been
examined. Learned trial Court has not
appreciated that the said neighbours were
migrant and their presence could not be
secured despite various attempts by the
prosecution but has totally ignored the
testimony of PW-10, who has totally
corroborated the version of the victim. Hence,
the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.
That the learned trial Court has arrived
wrongly at the conclusion that in the alleged
history of medical officer has not mentioned
that the accused was produced with the
alleged history of penetrative sexual assault
but rather has been mentioned as patient
brought by the police for medical evidence.
That the learned trial Court has wrongly
acquitted the accused persons without
appreciating the cross examination of the
victim child by the accused No.1, where
specific admissions have been made
regarding the incident, hence, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
That the learned trial Court fell into error
and has wrongly acquitted the accused
persons and has not appreciatedthe
admission made by the accused no.1,
wherein, it has been admitted that both the
13
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
accused persons were seen by the mother of
the victim near to the public toilet at the
distance of 500 meters from the house of the
victim in the morning of alleged incident and
admitted that the accused N o.1 was the
employee of public toilet. Hence, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
That learned trial Court has failed to
appreciate the aim and objective behind the
enactment of the Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned trial
Court has wrongly extended the benefit of
doubt in favour of the accused persons
despite the fact that the accused miserably
failed to rebut the presumptions under
sections 29 and 30 of the Act. Hence, the
impugned judgment is bad in the eyes of law
and liable to be set aside in the interest of
justice.
That the learned trial Court has given much
importance to the minor contradictions and
insignificant discrepancies in the statement of
the prosecutrix/victim and other witnesses,
which are bound to occur after a lapse of time
and lengthy cross examination. The offence of
sexual assault is most morally and physically
reprehensible crime in a civilized society. The
learned trial Court was required to appreciate
the evidence with great care and caution
especially in offences of sexual assault. The
learned trial Court failed to appreciate
evidence as well as law in the light of the
facts and circumstances of the present case,
hence, the verdict of acquittal recorded by the
learned trial Court is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
14
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
That PW17 ASI Kiran Kumar moved an
application Ext.P-29/PW12 to Registrar (Birth
and Death) Primary Health Centre, Nauhjheel
Bgangar, Mathura, UP to procure the birth
certificate of the child victim and he produced
the birth certificate Ext.,PE and extract of
the register Ext.PF from medical officer,
which clearly establish that the victim was
minor on the date of incident and her date of
birth is 01.11.2012, hence, the accused is
liable to be convicted in accordance with the
POCSO Act.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully gone through the material on record and the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court while passing the
impugned judgment dated 30.10.2024.
12. Learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously
argued that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the
oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution
leading to miscarriage of justice. The statement of the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2) and her mother being
complainant ‘R’ (PW-1) fully corroborated the prosecution
case and involvement of the accused persons in committing
sexual assault (penetrative sexual assault) upon the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-1) on 16.09.2022 during the day
time at place Village Burli Kothi (Paprola), Tehsil Baijnath,
15
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
District Kangra, H.P. There is sufficient oral and
documentary evidence on record to convict the accused for
the commission of offence(s) punishable under Sections 376
and 342 read with Section 34 IPC nd under Section 4, 6 and
8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
Sohan Singh (A-1), defended the judgment of acquittal
passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the oral
and documentary evidence led by the prosecution has been
wholly appreciated and the reasons assigned for non
acceptance thereof, warrants no interference.
14. Perusal of the record reveals that the learned
Special Judge on considering and evaluating the material and
evidence led by the prosecution, disbelieved the same and
proceeded with acquitting the accused persons of the charges
framed against them.
15. The present appeal has been filed against the
judgment of acquittal, therefore, the scope of powers of the
Appellate Court in the case of an appeal against acquittal
needs to be considered before embarking upon the factual
matrix.
16
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
16. The Privy Council of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42
has observed that the High Court should and will always give
proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the
views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses;
(2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a
presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has
been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the
benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate
court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.
17. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently
been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tulsiram
Kanu v. State, 1954 Cri.LJ 225, Balbir Singh v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G. Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200.
18. Furthermore, the scope of the powers of the
Appellate Court in case of an appeal against acquittal were
again reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muralidhar
alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnatka reported in
(2014) 5 SCC 730 Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & ;
17
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
another reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471 H.D. Sundara & ;
others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC
581; Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported
in (2022) 8 SCC 440; Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. reported
in (2023) 12 SCC 741 and Surendra Singh v. State of
Uttarakhand reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025)
5 SCC 433
19. Having considered the ratio of law laid down by
Hon’ble Apex Court in judgments referred supra, it is now
well settled that powers of Appellate Court while hearing the
appeals against the acquittal are not unbridled. There is a
clear caveat that in case the view arrived at by the trial Court
is a possible one borne from the material on record, the same
cannot be viewed differently, even if, there is a possibility of
any other view.
20. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to
the effect that in exceptional cases where there are
compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is
found to be perverse, the Appellate Court can interfere with
the order of acquittal. Further, if two views were possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellant Court
18
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
Trial Court, merely, because the Appellate Court could have
arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court.
21. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts
and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter
the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of
assurance is required to convict the accused.
22. Now coming to the facts of the case. As per the
allegations, the accused Sohan Singh (A-1) and his co-
accused Balbir Kumar (A-2) committed sexual assault
(penetrative sexual assault) upon the Victim Child/
Prosecutrix ‘G’ on 22.09.2022 during the day time at village
Burli Kothi (Paprola), Tehsil Bainath, District Kangra, H.P. in
the absence of her mother ‘R’ (PW-1). On the date of
occurrence, the mother of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’
i.e. complainant ‘R’ had gone to Taragarh, where she received
a telephone call of her landord Surender Kumar (PW-11)
regarding the incident and on returning home, the entire
19
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
incident was narrated to her by her daughter. As per the
disclosure of facts, the accused persons came to her house
and the accused Balbir Kumar (A-2) sent her brother to
nearby shops to bring cold-drink/juice. The accused Sohan
Singh (A-1) disrobed the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’,
touched her body parts inappropriately and inserted finger in
her private part. The accused Balbir Kumar (A-2) during the
aforesaid period had caught hold the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ and had gagged her mouth in order to
prevent her from raising alarm. Later they tried to take her
on the roof of the house, but she managed to rescue herself
by biting one of the accused and later, met her aunt outside
the house and narrated the incident and thereafter alarm
was raised, villagers gathered and accused Sohan Singh (A-1)
was apprehended at the spot.
23. Ext.P-1/PW1 is the application for registration of
case filed by the complainant ‘R’, being the mother of the
Victim Child /Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2) before the SHO, Police
Station, Baijnath, thereby putting on record material facts
and sequence of events unfolding the incident on the basis of
narration of facts contained therein, case FIR No.144 dated
20
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
16.09.2022 under Sections 376, 511 IPC and Sections 4, 6
and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 was registered at Police Station
Baijnath (Ext.P-2/PW1). Therefore, the aforesaid document(s)
being the primary evidence put on record the material facts,
needs to be considered minutely vis-a-vis oral evidence of the
Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’, examined as PW-2 and the
evidence of her mother, being complainant ‘R’ examined as
PW-1.
24. Before adverting to the evidence of the Victim
Child / Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2), and her mother complainant ‘R’
(PW-1), it may be fruitful to refer to the relevant case law,
which is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the
present case considering the nature of accusations against the
accused persons.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Imran Khan
vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),(2011)10 Supreme Court
Cases 192, has held as under:-
“15. It is a trite law that a woman, who is the
victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to
the crime but is a victim of another person's lust.
The Prosecutrix stands at a higher pedestal than
an injured witness as she suffers from emotional
injury. Therefore, her evidence need not be tested
21
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
with the same amount of suspicion as that of an
accomplice. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter called Evidence Act'), nowhere says
that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars. She is
undoubtedly a competent witness under Section
118 of Evidence Act and her evidence must
receive the same weight as is attached to an
injured in cases of physical violence. The same
degree of care and caution must attach in the
evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an
injured complainant or witness and no more. If
the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied
that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix,
there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in
the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to
Section 114 which requires it to look for
corroboration. If for some reason the court is
hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony
of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which
may lend assurance to her testimony short of
corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. If the totality of the circumstances
appearing on the record of the case disclose that
the Prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to
falsely involve the person charged, the court
should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting
her evidence. The court must be alive to its
responsibility and be sensitive while dealing
with cases involving sexual molestations. Rape is
not merely a physical assault, rather it often
distracts the whole personality of the victim. The
rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless
female and, therefore, the testimony of the
Prosecutrix must be appreciated in the
background of the entire case and in such cases,
22
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
non-examination even of other witnesses may not
be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case,
particularly where the witnesses had not seen the
commission of the offence. (Vide: State of
Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658; State of U.P. v. Pappu
@Yunus & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248; and Vijay @
Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191).
Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is
to the effect that statement of Prosecutrix, if found
to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no
corroboration. The court may convict the accused
on the sole testimony of the Prosecutrix.
26. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash
Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault,
is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another
person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested
with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice.
The Court observed as under :-
"A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on
par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of
the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that
her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars. She is
undoubtedly a competent witness under Section
118 and her evidence must receive the same
weight as is attached to an injured in cases of
physical violence. The same degree of care and
caution must attach in the evaluation of her
23
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
evidence as in the case of an injured
complainant or witness and no more. What is
necessary is that the Court must be alive to and
conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the
evidence of a person who is interested in the
outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court
keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can
act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no
rule of law or practice incorporated in the
Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section
114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If
for some reason the court is hesitant to place
implicit reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may
lend assurance to her testimony short of
corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. The nature of evidence required to
lend assurance to the testimony of the
prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. But if a
prosecutrix is an adult and of full
understanding the court is entitled to base a
conviction on her evidence unless the same is
shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the
totality of the circumstances appearing on the
record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix
does not have a strong motive to falsely involve
the person charged, the court should ordinarily
have no hesitation in accepting her evidence."
27. In State of U.P. Vs. Pappu @Yunus & Anr. AIR
2005 SC 1248 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in
a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or
a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground
24
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be
established that there was consent by her for that particular
occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a
factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that there can be conviction on
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is
not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek
other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get
assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under :-
"It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of
having been a victim of the offence of rape is not
an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of
law that her testimony cannot be acted without
corroboration in material particulars. She stands
at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In
the latter case, there is injury on the physical form,
while in the former it is both physical as well as
psychological and emotional. However, if the court
of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the
Prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for
evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would
lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short
of corroboration as understood in the context of an
accomplice, would do."
28. In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. AIR
1996 SC 1393 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases
involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the court is
25
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity.
Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the
statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for
throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence
of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it
does not require any corroboration unless there are
compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may
look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial
conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable
than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice.
The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual
offence may not be even properly explained, but if found
natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"The court overlooked the situation in which a poor
helpless minor girl had found herself in the
company of three desperate young men who were
threatening her and preventing her from raising
any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did
not conduct the investigation properly or was
negligent in not being able to trace out the
driver or the car, how can that become a ground
to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The
prosecutrix had no control over the investigating
agency and the negligence of an investigating
officer could not affect the credibility of the
26
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
statement of the prosecutrix...............The courts
must, while evaluating evidence remain alive to
the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting
woman would come forward in a court just to
make a humiliating statement against her honour
such as is involved in the commission of rape on
her. In cases involving sexual molestation,
supposed considerations which have no material
effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or
even discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies
are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to
throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution
case.............Seeking corroboration of her
statement before replying upon the same as a
rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to
injury............Corroboration as a condition for
judicial reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a
guidance of prudence under given circumstances.
The courts should examine the broader
probabilities of a case and not get swayed by
minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies
in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not
of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix
inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without
seeking corroboration of her statement in material
particulars. If for some reason the court finds it
difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony,
it may look for evidence which may lend
assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration
required in the case of an accomplice. The
testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated
in the background of the entire case and the trial
27
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
court must be alive to its responsibility and be
sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual
molestations."
29. In State of Orissa Vs. Thakara Besra & Anr.
AIR 2002 SC 1963 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
rape is not mere a physical assault, rather it often distracts
the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the
very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony
of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of
the entire case and in such cases, non- examination
even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the
prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not
seen the commission of the offence.
30. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubir
Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence
to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording
an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not
counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and
there is absence of circumstances which militate against her
veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble
28
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
Supreme Court in Wahid Khan Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 9 , placing reliance on earlier
judgment in Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952
SC 54.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat
[1983(3) SCC 217] has laid down the elaborate guidelines as
to how the evidence of the prosecutrix in the crime of rape
should be evaluated by the Court.
32. In Ved Parkash versus State of Himachal
Pradesh (2005(1) SLC 395) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the question of value of the statement of
the Prosecutrix, held as under:-
"8. At may be pointed out at the very outset that
by now it is well settled that conviction of a
person accused of the commission of rape can be
based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix
because she is not an accomplice but victim of the
offence, hence, the injured person. Her evidence
can also not be suspected for the reason that no
self respecting woman would come forward to
lower her dignity and self esteem by making false
allegations of rape on her. Therefore, a conviction
can be based on the statement of the prosecutrix
when her statement is found cogent, reliable and
confidence inspiring. In case for some reason the
Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the
29
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
testimony of the prosecutrix it may look into other
evidence which may lend assurance to her
testimony.. In a case where the prosecutrix is
adult and of full understanding the Court can
base conviction on her evidence unless shown to
be infirm or untrustworthy. In case the prosecutrix
has no motive to falsely implicate the accused the
Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in
accepting her evidence."
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Kumar and
another vs. State of Haryana, (2004)4 SCC 379 held as
under:-
“5. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining
of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not
an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of
law that her testimony cannot be acted without
corroboration in material particulars. She stands
at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In
the latter case, there is injury on the physical form,
while in the former it is both physical as well as
psychological and emotional. However, if the court
of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the
prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for
evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would
lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance,
short of corroboration as understood in the context
of an accomplice would suffice.
7.Penetration is the sine qua non for an offence of
rape. In order to constitute penetration, there must
be evidence clear and cogent to prove that some
part of the virile member of the accused was
within the labia of the pudendum of the woman,
no matter how little (See Joseph Lines IC & K 893).
It is well-known in the medical world that the
30
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
examination of smegma loses all importance after
twenty four hours of the performance of the sexual
intercourse. (See Dr. S.P. Kholi, Civil Surgeon,
Ferozepur v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
thr. Registrar (1979) 1 SCC 212). In rape cases,
if the gland of the male organ is covered by
smegma, it negatives the possibility of recent
complete penetration. If the accused is not
circumcised, the existence of smegma round the
corona gland is proof against penetration, since it
is rubbed off during the act. The smegma
accumulates if no bath is taken within twenty four
hours. The rupture of hymen is by no means
necessary to constitute the offence of rape. Even a
slight penetration in the vulva is sufficient to
constitute the offence of rape and rupture of the
hymen is not necessary. Vulva penetration with or
without violence is as much rape as vaginal
penetration. The statute merely requires evidence
of penetration, and this may occur with the hymen
remaining intact. The actus reus is complete with
penetration. It is well settled that the prosecutrix
cannot be considered as accomplice and,therefore,
her testimony cannot be equated with that of an
accomplice in an offence of rape. In examination of
genital organs, state of hymen offers the most
reliable clue. While examining the hymen, certain
anatomical characteristics should be remembered
before assigning any significance to the findings.
The shape and the texture of the hymen is
variable. This variation, sometimes permits
penetration without injury. This is possible
because of the peculiar shape of the orifice or
increased elasticity. On the other hand, sometimes
the hymen may be more firm, less elastic and gets
stretched and lacerated earlier. Thus a relatively
31
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
less forceful penetration may not give rise to
injuries ordinarily possible with a forceful attempt.
The anatomical feature with regard to hymen
which merits consideration is its anatomical
situation. Next to hymen in positive importance,
but more than that in frequency, are the
injuries on labia majora. These,viz. Labia majora
are the first to be encountered by the male organ.
They are subjected to blunt forceful blows,
depending on the vigour and force used by the
accused and counteracted by the victim.
Further,examination of the females for marks of
injuries elsewhere on the body forms a very
important piece of evidence. To constitute the
offence of rape, it is not necessary that there
should be complete penetration of the penis with
emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial
penetration within the labia majora of the vulva or
pudendum with or without emission of semen is
sufficient to constitute the offence of rape as
defined in the law. The depth of penetration is
immaterial in an offence punishable under
Section 376 IPC.”
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarkeshwar
Sahu vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand, (2006)8 SCC 560,
held as under:-
10. Under Section 375 IPC, six categories indicated
above are the basic ingredients of the offence. In
the facts and circumstances of this case, the
prosecutrix was about 12 years of age, therefore,
her consent was irrelevant. The appellant had
forcibly taken her to his Gumti with the intention of
committing sexual intercourse with her. The
important ingredient of the offence under Section
32
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
375 punishable under Section 376 IPC is
penetration which is altogether missing in the
instant case. No offence under Section 376 IPC can
be made out unless there was penetration to some
extent. In absence of penetration to any extent
would not bring the offence of the appellant within
the four corners of Section 375 of the Indian Penal
Code. Therefore, the basic ingredients for proving
a charge of rape are the accomplishment of the act
with force. The other important ingredient is
penetration of the male organ within the labia
majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without
any emission of semen or even an attempt at
penetration into the private part of the victim
completely, partially or slightly would be enough
for the purpose of Sections 375 and 376 IPC. This
Court had an occasion to deal with the basic
ingredients of this offence in the case of State of
U.P. v. Babul Nath. In this case, this Court dealt
with the basic ingredients of the offence under
Section 375 in the following words:- "8. It may
here be noticed that Section 375 of the IPC defines
rape and the Explanation to Section 375 reads as
follows:
"Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute
the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of
rape."
From the Explanation reproduced above it is
distinctly clear that ingredients which are
essential for proving a charge of rape are the
accomplishment of the act with force and
resistance. To constitute the offence of rape neither
Section 375 of IPC nor the Explanation attached
thereto require that there should necessarily be
complete penetration of the penis into the private
part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to
33
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
constitute the offence of rape it is not at all
necessary that there should be complete
penetration of the male organ with emission of
semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or
slightest penetration of the male organ within the
labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or
without any emission of semen or even an attempt
at penetration into the private part of the victim
would be quite enough for the purpose of Sections
375 and 376 of IPC. That being so it is quite
possible to commit legally the offence of rape even
without causing any injury to the genitals or
leaving any seminal stains. But in the present
case before us as noticed above there is more than
enough evidence positively showing that there
was sexual activity on the victim and she was
subjected to sexual assault without which she
would not have sustained injuries of the nature
found on her private part by the doctor who
examined her."
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narender
Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012)7 SCC 171 held as
under:-
“29. However, even in a case of rape, the onus is
always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively
each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish
and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the
duty of the defence to explain as to how and why
in a rape case the victim and other witness have
falsely implicated the accused. Prosecution case
has to stand on its own legs and cannot take
support from the weakness of the case of defence.
However great the suspicion against the accused
and however strong the moral belief and conviction
34
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
of the court, unless the offence of the accused is
established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of legal evidence and material on the record, he
cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an
initial presumption of innocence of the accused
and the prosecution has to bring home the offence
against the accused by reliable evidence. The
accused is entitled to the benefit of every
reasonable doubt. (Vide: Tukaram & Anr. v. The
State of Maharashtra,, AIR 1979 SC 185; and
Uday v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639).
30 . Prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and cannot take support from
the weakness of the case of defence. There must
be proper legal evidence and material on record to
record the conviction of the accused. Conviction
can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix
provided it lends assurance of her testimony.
However, in case the court has reason not to
accept the version of prosecutrix on its face value,
it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence
is read in its totality and the story projected by the
prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the
prosecutrix case becomes liable to be rejected.”
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munna vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 10 SCC 254, has
reiterated the principle that testimony of prosecutrix is
almost at par with an immediate witness and can be acted
upon without corroboration.
37. Reiterating its earlier view in Mohd. Iqbal v.
State of Jharkhand,(2013) 14 SCC, 481, Narender Kumar
35
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
State v. (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7SCC 171, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014)
10 SC 327, has held that sole testimony of prosecutrix is
sufficient to establish commission of rape, even in the absence
of any corroborative evidence.
38. Reiterating the earlier view, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana (2018) 10 SCC
34, State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary (2019)
11SCC 575 and Ganesan vs. State (2020) 10 SCC 573 held
that sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to establish
commission of rape if ‘duly corroborated’.
39. The testimony of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’
examined as PW2 is to be assessed keeping in view the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases referred
supra.
40. Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ stepped into the
witness box as PW-2 and as per her evidence, in the last year,
she along with her brother were at home and her mother had
gone for work. Two persons came to her house and sent her
brother to bring cold-drink/juice from the market. One person
put off her clothes, touched her body parts and inserted finger
36
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
into her private part. The other person gagged her mouth and
they tried to take her on the roof of her house, but she ran
away after biting one person, she came out of the house and
met with an aunt, who was outside the house and narrated
the incident to her. Those persons went away and one of them
again came there after changing his clothes. Many persons
had gathered there and they caught one of the accused i.e.
Sohan Singh (A-1).
41. The complainant ‘R’, the mother of the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ has stepped into the witness box as PW-
1 and has testified that the age of her daughter is 10 years
and she is youngest amongst the siblings. On 16.09.2022,
she had gone to Taragarh to buy medicines, where she
received a call from her landlord, who disclosed that someone
had committed wrong acts with her daughter and asked her to
return as soon as possible. She returned and reached back
at about 11:00 A.M. and met her daughter, who disclosed
the incident. As per the facts disclosed to her, the accused
Sohan Singh (A-1) came to her room, put off her clothes and
touched her body parts. He also put his finger in her
private part and thereafter, tried to take her on the roof of
37
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
her house. Her daughter rescued herself and ran away and
later met with an aunt (neighbour) and narrated the incident.
Later, the accused Sohan Singh was apprehended by the
villagers and was beaten up. Her daughter also disclosed
regarding the involvement of the other person, who had come
with the accused Sohan Singh (A-1) and had given money to
her son to buy cold-drink/ juice from the market. As per her
evidence, later she filed an application Ext.P-1/PW1 with the
SHO, Police Station Baijnath for taking action against the
accused persons.
42. Ext.P-9/PW2 is the statement of the Victim Child/
Prosecutrix ‘G’ recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. by
st
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Baijnath, District
Kangra on 17.09.2022. As per the aforesaid documents, on
the date of incident, the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ was
cleaning utensils when the accused Sohan Singh (A-1) came
to her house and took her in a room, where he removed her
clothes, pressed her breasts and inserted his hand in her
private part. Thereafter, he tried to take her on the roof-top,
but she managed to rescue herself and ran out of the house
and later she disclosed the incident to her aunt (neighbour).
38
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
There was another boy with the accused, who had gagged her
mouth.
43. The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence refers
to the sequel of events and the involvement of the accused
persons in allegedly sexually assaulting (penetrative sexual
assault) the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2). Although, the
aforesaid evidence points towards the involvement of the
accused persons in the said incident, however, close scrutiny
thereof renders the version improbable and unacceptable.
Apparently, there are material contradictions and
improvements in the statements of principal prosecution
witnesses regarding the actual occurrence of the incident.
44. We have carefully considered the aforesaid evidence
and found the same to be unworthy of credence for the
reasons discussed herein below.
45. As per the evidence of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix
‘G’ (PW-2) and her mother, complainant ‘R’ (PW-1),the accused
persons were not known to them prior to the incident,
however, the aforesaid fact has been explicitly contradicted by
Inspector Pooja Kaundal (PW-12), being the Investigating
Officer, who disclosed that accused persons were known to
39
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
the mother of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ prior to the
incident.
46. Apart from this, there is also material contradiction
to the effect that whether the brother of the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix “G’ (PW-2), was present in the house when
the accused persons made entry therein or during the course
of incident. As per the evidence of the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2), the accused Balbir Kumar (A-2)
had given money to her brother to buy juice/cold-drink from
the market. However, the aforesaid fact is conspicuously
missing from her statement recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C. (Ext.P-9/PW2). The evidence of complainant ‘R’ (PW-1)
on this aspect is also hearsay in nature, therefore, the same
cannot be considered.
47. It has also come in the statement of the Victim
Child/ Prosecutrix ‘G’ that her brother made hue and cry. The
aforesaid fact is completely new and does not find mention in
the evidence collected during the course of investigation.
Since, the prosecution has not examined the brother of the
Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2), in absence thereof, the
evidence put on record in this regard cannot be accepted.
40
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
48. It has consistently come in the prosecution evidence
that the Victim Child/Prosecutrix (PW-2) rescued herself by
biting the accused Balbir Kumar (A-2) and ran away from the
room and met her aunt (neighbour), to whom, she disclosed
the entire incident. Therefore, the person, who immediately
met the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ was her aunt
(neighbour), named Chandni, but despite this fact, the
prosecution did not examine her during the course of
investigation. The name of said aunt find mentions in the
statement of Surender Kumar, Landlord (PW-11) and as per
his evidence, she is also tenant in the same building, where
the incident took place. It has also come in the evidence of
Surender Kumar (PW-11) that she was the first person who
disclosed the incident to him, which he communicated to the
complainant ‘R’ (PW-1). Apparently, Ms. Chandni was the
material witness to ascertain the post-incident events and the
involvement of the accused persons. Apparently, there is no
direct evidence regarding the incident save and except the
evidence of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2). No one
from the locality saw the accused persons entering inside the
house of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2), however,
41
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
their presence has been confirmed by all the witnesses after
the alleged incident. It is emerging on record that the accused
Sohan Singh (A-1) was caught by the villagers and was beaten
up subsequently.
49. The statement of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’
examined as PW-2, does not inspire confidence in view of
inconsistent facts disclosed by her while making statement
before the learned trial Court as PW-2 and during the course
of investigation as well as while making statement under
st
section 164 Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate 1
Class (Ext.P-9/PW2).
50. The medical evidence brought on record by the
prosecution i.e. the MLC of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’
(Ext.P3/PW1) and the opinion given by Dr. Indu (PW-4) do not
suggest penetration of finger into the vagina of the Victim
Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’. As per the evidence of Dr. Indu (PW-4),
there was no injury on any part of the body. There was no
bleeding in vaginum and no injury was seen over external
genitalia. Similarly, Dr. Abha Sharma (PW-5) Gynecologist
also examined the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2) and
found no external injury on Victim Child/Prosecutrix and
42
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
there was no gross abnormality. She has also admitted in her
statement that there was no abrasion or tenderness outside
the private part of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ at the time
of her examination.
51. Having considered the evidence of Dr. Indu (PW4),
Dr. Abha Sharma (PW-5) as well as opinion Ext.P-14/PW4
and opinion Ext.P-16/PW5 given on the MLC Ext.P-3/PW1,
the facts alleged by the prosecution against the accused
persons are not corroborated. Similarly, the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory Reports Ext.P-31/PW13 and Ext.P-
32/PW13 are also inconsequential to ascertain the factum of
sexual assault upon the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’ (PW-2).
52. The presence of the accused Balbir Kumar (A-2) and
his involvement is also not well substantiated having
considered the fact that he did not figure during the course of
initial investigation. His name was neither referred nor
mentioned in the complaint Ext.P-1/PW1. His involvement
was introduced at later point in time, therefore, the
prosecution case qua his involvement along with accused
Sohan Singh (A-1) is also under suspicion.
43
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
53. After carefully analyzing the material and
documentary evidence led by the prosecution, this Court finds
that sole evidence of the Victim Child/Prosecutrix ‘G’
examined as PW-2, is neither consistent nor credible to infer
the involvement of the accused persons for the reasons
referred and discussed hereinabove. There are material
omissions in her evidence on material facts, which renders her
version vulnerable and suspicious. Her evidence recorded
before the learned trial Court as PW-2 and again under
section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.P-9/PW2 lack consistency and
uniformity on the material aspects and therefore, the same is
to be considered with pinch of salt.
54. Learned trial Court appears to have considered the
material evidence in its right perspective and for the reasons
therein, he did not find involvement of the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt.
55. Findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not
suffer from any material irregularities or perversity,
warranting interference and indulgence by this Court.
56. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and it
is dismissed.
44
( 2026:HHC:45838 )
57. The accused Sohan Singh (A-1) is in custody. He be
set free forthwith, if not required, in any other process of law.
58. A copy of this judgment along with the record of
the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
59. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Bhupesh Sharma)
Judge
th
16 Octo ber, 2026
(Sanjeev)
RAJEE
Digitally signed by RAJEEV KUMAR
DN: C=IN, CN=RAJEEV KUMAR, O=
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH SHIMLA, ST=Himachal
Pradesh, postalCode=171001,
serialNumber=
bdac8a4bc1cc6ffcb21b42545dcc7fa29c8
4a89b4d6db44d96244e5d382d09c5,
telephoneNumber=
6f224bbecf4ae0090031406c3dc3cf716bb
b8b003d3ba3e482a83c129b6b8cfe
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.16 11:59:39+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.1
V
KUMAR