Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 561
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 595 OF 2016
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
SANJAY KUMAR ...RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 596 OF 2016
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
CHAMAN SHUKLA ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. These appeals would call in question, the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.04.23
18:02:10 IST
Reason:
Judgment of acquittal dated 28.12.2015 passed by the High
2
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
4246 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 4273 of 2013 setting
aside the conviction and sentence of accused/Sanjay Kumar
under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 read with Section 34 of
1
the Indian Penal Code,1860 , and accused/Chaman Shukla
under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC imposed by the
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (H.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 8/7 of
2012 arising out of FIR No. 47 of 2012 dated 31.03.2012,
registered at P.S. Barmana, District Bilaspur (H.P.).
2 . The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.03.2012,
Parkash Chand (PW-5), father of the prosecutrix, was
addressing religious story (‘Katha’) in Sri Naina Devi temple at
Sohra Buins and his wife Shanta Sharma along with her
daughter Tanu Sharma (PW-2) and the prosecutrix aged about
14 years (PW-13) also went to listen the Katha. During Katha,
PW-2 asked the prosecutrix to take her son, aged about two
years, to bed for sleeping in a room of the temple. After a long
time, when the prosecutrix did not return, PW-2 went to the
room where she found her son sleeping, but did not find the
1
(for short, ‘IPC’)
3
prosecutrix in the room. Upon this, PW-2 informed her in-laws
and others and started searching for the prosecutrix but
remained unsuccessful. They raised a suspicion that the
accused/Sanjay Kumar had kidnapped the prosecutrix. PW-2
called her husband Narender Shail (PW-1) who made a
complaint at the Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur and
on that basis, FIR was registered.
2.2 . On 01.04.2012, accused/Chaman Shukla along with
the prosecutrix went to the Police Station Rampur, District
Shimla and informed that he had found her walking on the road
at Narkanda on 30.03.2012 and brought her to his home. Upon
production of the prosecutrix at Police Station, Rampur, a police
party of Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur along with
relatives of the prosecutrix reached there and the prosecutrix
was handed over to them by entering Rapat in the Rojnamcha
at Police Station, Rampur. The accused/Sanjay Kumar was
arrested on 04.04.2012 and the prosecutrix as well as
accused/Sanjay Kumar were medically examined.
2.3 . During the course of investigation, it was found that
accused/Sanjay Kumar kidnapped the prosecutrix in his Alto
Car bearing registration No. HP-24-8684 on 30.03.2012 and
4
spent that night in the house of Jawala Devi (PW-6) at village
Thaila Chakti, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla where he allegedly
committed rape on her. On the next day, the prosecutrix was
kept in the house of accused/Chaman Shukla who threatened
her to state that she came to Rampur of her own volition and
further tried to mislead the investigating agency. PW-6 also
handed over one shirt of the prosecutrix. Regarding the age of
the prosecutrix, the investigating officer procured her birth
certificate wherein her date of birth was recorded as
09.12.1997 which is corroborated with the family register. On
07.04.2012, the car was seized along with one mobile phone
having sim of Vodafone. On 11.04.2012, the prosecutrix was
produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur where her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
2.4 . On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed
and, in course of trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses
in support of the charges. The accused pleaded not guilty but
did not lead any evidence in defence.
2.5 . On the basis of evidence brought on record during the
course of trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused/Sanjay
Kumar for the subject offences and sentenced him to undergo
5
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
20,000/- and accused/Chaman Shukla to undergo simple
imprisonment for 01 year against which they preferred appeals
before the High Court. The High Court has set aside the above
conviction & sentence and resultantly the Criminal Appeals
preferred by the accused/appellants have been allowed by the
impugned Judgment. Hence, these appeals.
3 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records. Learned counsel have taken us through
the entire evidence on record.
4 . Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/State would mainly rely upon the
statement of the prosecutrix to prove the allegations against
the accused as the prosecutrix was taken away by the
accused/Sanjay Kumar without any obstruction from Naina
Devi temple because of prior acquaintance. He further submits
that the prosecutrix is naturally the most important witness
beside other circumstantial evidence and the High Court has
erroneously discarded the version of the prosecutrix on its face
6
value. Her statement must be appreciated in the background of
the entire case. He would submit that the testimony of the
prosecutrix inspires absolute confidence and is sufficient on its
own to sustain the conviction.
5 . Per contra, Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would submit that
accused/Sanjay Kumar has been falsely implicated merely on
suspicion of prior acquaintance with the prosecutrix whereas
the prosecutrix had run away of her own will. He submitted
that the prosecutrix had categorically stated that rape had
been committed on her in the night of March 30, 2012,
whereas the entries in DDR Ex. PW-21/A and PW-21/B
establish that she was with the other accused Chaman Shukla
on that night and basing such inconsistencies the Trial Court
had acquitted the co-accused Lekh Ram, whereas, the
respondents herein were ordered to be convicted. He further
argued that allegedly the rape was committed in the house of
PW-6 (Jawala), who did not support the version of the
prosecutrix. He would further contend that it was the specific
case of the prosecution that the police had traced the
7
prosecutrix by following her mobile phone through telephone
tower location, whereas no such details were produced during
the course of trial which attracts adverse inference against the
prosecution. It is further argued that no DNA examination was
conducted to match the semen of the accused with the semen
allegedly recovered from the clothes of the prosecutrix
6 . The Trial Court recorded a finding that the date of birth of
the prosecutrix is 09.12.1997, therefore, she was less than 16
years of age when the alleged incident took place. It is also
held that the accused-Sanjay Kumar was known to the family
of the prosecutrix and taking advantage of the proximity, he
enticed and induced her to sit in the vehicle and thereafter they
went to Rampur. On the issue of commission of sexual
intercourse, the Trial Court noted that PW-6/Jawala Devi having
not supported the prosecution, the only statement on this issue
was the statement of PW-13/Prosecutrix. On the basis of
corroborative statements of PW-1/Narender Shail, PW-3/Babu
Ram and the statements of PW-13/Prosecutrix, the Trial Court
found that the Prosecutrix stayed for a night in the house of
PW-6/Jawala Devi and coupled with the medical report,
8
believed the prosecution version and convicted the
accused/Sanjay Kumar for committing offence of rape whereas
the accused/Chaman Shukla has been convicted for committing
offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
7 . In the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court,
after an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record, it is
held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges
against the accused/respondents. The High Court observed that
as per the prosecutrix the accused/Sanjay Kumar took her to
Rampur in the house of PW-6/Jawala Devi on 30.03.2012 and
during night he committed rape. The next evening
accused/Sanjay Kumar took her to the house of co-
rd
accused/Chaman Shukla and had left her there and on the 3
day i.e. 01.04.2012, some people including co-accused Lekh
Ram from her village came to the house of Chaman Shukla and
took her to the Police Station, Rampur and made a statement
that she ran away from her house because her parents used to
beat her. Accused/Chaman Shukla made her to make an
incorrect statement and accused/Lekh Ram threatened her.
Thereafter, Prosecutrix accompanied by accused/Chaman
9
Shukla came to Police Station, Rampur and on the basis of her
statement Daily Diary Report Mark-Z1 was entered. Her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded vide
exhibit PW-13/A. In cross-examination, she admitted that she
did not disclose anything to PW-6/Jawala Devi or her family
members or even thereafter did not disclose anything to co-
accused/Chaman Shukla and his family members, though she
spent one night there. She admitted that she had not disclosed
that the accused/Sanjay Kumar committed rape with her.
Throughout her journey from Bilaspur to Rampur she did not
inform to anyone that the accused/Sanjay Kumar had
kidnapped her. She categorically admitted that accused/Sanjay
Kumar committed rape with her at Thali Chakti and not at the
house of the co-accused/Chaman Shukla and that the rape was
committed in the night of 30.03.2012, in the house of PW-
6/Jawala Devi and on 31.03.2012 she stayed in the house of
accused/Chaman Shukla and no rape was committed with her
on that date as accused/Sanjay Kumar was not there.
8 . The High Court found that the best evidence about the
presence of accused/Sanjay Kumar at Rampur was that of PW-
10
6/Jawala Devi, as rape was committed at her residence.
However, PW-6/Jawala Devi has not supported the prosecution
nor any other witness who accompanied accused/Lekh Ram
have been examined. However, in her statement exhibit PW-
13/A and also in supplementary statement dated 08.04.2012,
the Prosecutrix had never disclosed that rape was committed
upon her at Rampur. There is no evidence as to the relation
between accused/Sanjay Kumar and PW-6/Jawala Devi. In
respect of the medical evidence, the High Court opined that the
possibility of rape could not be ruled out, but the question
remained as to who committed the rape and moreover, the
DNA profile of the semen found over the underwear of the
Prosecutrix has not been done. It is also found, as per
evidence, that accused/Sanjay Kumar alone committed rape as
there is no charge to that effect against co-accused/Chaman
Shukla. However, accused/Chaman Shukla was never informed
by the Prosecutrix about the commission of rape.
9 . Since the FIR was lodged regarding the abduction of the
Prosecutrix, there is no allegation of rape in the FIR. In her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C the Prosecutrix stated that
11
rape was committed in the night of 31.03.2012 when she was
in the house of accused/Chaman Shukla. However, in her
Court’s statement she stated that rape was committed by
accused/Sanjay Kumar in the night of 30.03.2012 when they
were staying in the house of PW-6/Jawala Devi. She admits of
not disclosing the fact of commission of rape to anyone in the
village Rampur or to the villagers or accused/Chaman Shukla
who brought her to the Police Station, Rampur.
10. In view of the above statement on record, we are of the
view that there is material contradiction in the statement of the
Prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape and since
accused/Sanjay Kumar was not with the Prosecutrix in the
night of 31.03.2012 when she was in the house of co-
accused/Chaman Shukla and there is no allegation of rape
against accused/Chaman Shukla in whose house she stayed on
the next night, the High Court has rightly concluded that the
commission of rape by accused/Sanjay Kumar is not proved.
11. In the above view of the matter and, particularly, for the
reasons that the view taken by the High Court is one plausible
view considering the evidence on record, interference against
12
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court is not
called for. Accordingly, both the appeals challenging acquittal of
accused/Sanjay Kumar and accused/Chaman Shukla are
dismissed.
………………………………………J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 561
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 595 OF 2016
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
SANJAY KUMAR ...RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 596 OF 2016
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
CHAMAN SHUKLA ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. These appeals would call in question, the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.04.23
18:02:10 IST
Reason:
Judgment of acquittal dated 28.12.2015 passed by the High
2
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
4246 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 4273 of 2013 setting
aside the conviction and sentence of accused/Sanjay Kumar
under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 read with Section 34 of
1
the Indian Penal Code,1860 , and accused/Chaman Shukla
under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC imposed by the
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (H.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 8/7 of
2012 arising out of FIR No. 47 of 2012 dated 31.03.2012,
registered at P.S. Barmana, District Bilaspur (H.P.).
2 . The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.03.2012,
Parkash Chand (PW-5), father of the prosecutrix, was
addressing religious story (‘Katha’) in Sri Naina Devi temple at
Sohra Buins and his wife Shanta Sharma along with her
daughter Tanu Sharma (PW-2) and the prosecutrix aged about
14 years (PW-13) also went to listen the Katha. During Katha,
PW-2 asked the prosecutrix to take her son, aged about two
years, to bed for sleeping in a room of the temple. After a long
time, when the prosecutrix did not return, PW-2 went to the
room where she found her son sleeping, but did not find the
1
(for short, ‘IPC’)
3
prosecutrix in the room. Upon this, PW-2 informed her in-laws
and others and started searching for the prosecutrix but
remained unsuccessful. They raised a suspicion that the
accused/Sanjay Kumar had kidnapped the prosecutrix. PW-2
called her husband Narender Shail (PW-1) who made a
complaint at the Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur and
on that basis, FIR was registered.
2.2 . On 01.04.2012, accused/Chaman Shukla along with
the prosecutrix went to the Police Station Rampur, District
Shimla and informed that he had found her walking on the road
at Narkanda on 30.03.2012 and brought her to his home. Upon
production of the prosecutrix at Police Station, Rampur, a police
party of Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur along with
relatives of the prosecutrix reached there and the prosecutrix
was handed over to them by entering Rapat in the Rojnamcha
at Police Station, Rampur. The accused/Sanjay Kumar was
arrested on 04.04.2012 and the prosecutrix as well as
accused/Sanjay Kumar were medically examined.
2.3 . During the course of investigation, it was found that
accused/Sanjay Kumar kidnapped the prosecutrix in his Alto
Car bearing registration No. HP-24-8684 on 30.03.2012 and
4
spent that night in the house of Jawala Devi (PW-6) at village
Thaila Chakti, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla where he allegedly
committed rape on her. On the next day, the prosecutrix was
kept in the house of accused/Chaman Shukla who threatened
her to state that she came to Rampur of her own volition and
further tried to mislead the investigating agency. PW-6 also
handed over one shirt of the prosecutrix. Regarding the age of
the prosecutrix, the investigating officer procured her birth
certificate wherein her date of birth was recorded as
09.12.1997 which is corroborated with the family register. On
07.04.2012, the car was seized along with one mobile phone
having sim of Vodafone. On 11.04.2012, the prosecutrix was
produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur where her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
2.4 . On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed
and, in course of trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses
in support of the charges. The accused pleaded not guilty but
did not lead any evidence in defence.
2.5 . On the basis of evidence brought on record during the
course of trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused/Sanjay
Kumar for the subject offences and sentenced him to undergo
5
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
20,000/- and accused/Chaman Shukla to undergo simple
imprisonment for 01 year against which they preferred appeals
before the High Court. The High Court has set aside the above
conviction & sentence and resultantly the Criminal Appeals
preferred by the accused/appellants have been allowed by the
impugned Judgment. Hence, these appeals.
3 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records. Learned counsel have taken us through
the entire evidence on record.
4 . Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/State would mainly rely upon the
statement of the prosecutrix to prove the allegations against
the accused as the prosecutrix was taken away by the
accused/Sanjay Kumar without any obstruction from Naina
Devi temple because of prior acquaintance. He further submits
that the prosecutrix is naturally the most important witness
beside other circumstantial evidence and the High Court has
erroneously discarded the version of the prosecutrix on its face
6
value. Her statement must be appreciated in the background of
the entire case. He would submit that the testimony of the
prosecutrix inspires absolute confidence and is sufficient on its
own to sustain the conviction.
5 . Per contra, Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would submit that
accused/Sanjay Kumar has been falsely implicated merely on
suspicion of prior acquaintance with the prosecutrix whereas
the prosecutrix had run away of her own will. He submitted
that the prosecutrix had categorically stated that rape had
been committed on her in the night of March 30, 2012,
whereas the entries in DDR Ex. PW-21/A and PW-21/B
establish that she was with the other accused Chaman Shukla
on that night and basing such inconsistencies the Trial Court
had acquitted the co-accused Lekh Ram, whereas, the
respondents herein were ordered to be convicted. He further
argued that allegedly the rape was committed in the house of
PW-6 (Jawala), who did not support the version of the
prosecutrix. He would further contend that it was the specific
case of the prosecution that the police had traced the
7
prosecutrix by following her mobile phone through telephone
tower location, whereas no such details were produced during
the course of trial which attracts adverse inference against the
prosecution. It is further argued that no DNA examination was
conducted to match the semen of the accused with the semen
allegedly recovered from the clothes of the prosecutrix
6 . The Trial Court recorded a finding that the date of birth of
the prosecutrix is 09.12.1997, therefore, she was less than 16
years of age when the alleged incident took place. It is also
held that the accused-Sanjay Kumar was known to the family
of the prosecutrix and taking advantage of the proximity, he
enticed and induced her to sit in the vehicle and thereafter they
went to Rampur. On the issue of commission of sexual
intercourse, the Trial Court noted that PW-6/Jawala Devi having
not supported the prosecution, the only statement on this issue
was the statement of PW-13/Prosecutrix. On the basis of
corroborative statements of PW-1/Narender Shail, PW-3/Babu
Ram and the statements of PW-13/Prosecutrix, the Trial Court
found that the Prosecutrix stayed for a night in the house of
PW-6/Jawala Devi and coupled with the medical report,
8
believed the prosecution version and convicted the
accused/Sanjay Kumar for committing offence of rape whereas
the accused/Chaman Shukla has been convicted for committing
offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
7 . In the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court,
after an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record, it is
held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges
against the accused/respondents. The High Court observed that
as per the prosecutrix the accused/Sanjay Kumar took her to
Rampur in the house of PW-6/Jawala Devi on 30.03.2012 and
during night he committed rape. The next evening
accused/Sanjay Kumar took her to the house of co-
rd
accused/Chaman Shukla and had left her there and on the 3
day i.e. 01.04.2012, some people including co-accused Lekh
Ram from her village came to the house of Chaman Shukla and
took her to the Police Station, Rampur and made a statement
that she ran away from her house because her parents used to
beat her. Accused/Chaman Shukla made her to make an
incorrect statement and accused/Lekh Ram threatened her.
Thereafter, Prosecutrix accompanied by accused/Chaman
9
Shukla came to Police Station, Rampur and on the basis of her
statement Daily Diary Report Mark-Z1 was entered. Her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded vide
exhibit PW-13/A. In cross-examination, she admitted that she
did not disclose anything to PW-6/Jawala Devi or her family
members or even thereafter did not disclose anything to co-
accused/Chaman Shukla and his family members, though she
spent one night there. She admitted that she had not disclosed
that the accused/Sanjay Kumar committed rape with her.
Throughout her journey from Bilaspur to Rampur she did not
inform to anyone that the accused/Sanjay Kumar had
kidnapped her. She categorically admitted that accused/Sanjay
Kumar committed rape with her at Thali Chakti and not at the
house of the co-accused/Chaman Shukla and that the rape was
committed in the night of 30.03.2012, in the house of PW-
6/Jawala Devi and on 31.03.2012 she stayed in the house of
accused/Chaman Shukla and no rape was committed with her
on that date as accused/Sanjay Kumar was not there.
8 . The High Court found that the best evidence about the
presence of accused/Sanjay Kumar at Rampur was that of PW-
10
6/Jawala Devi, as rape was committed at her residence.
However, PW-6/Jawala Devi has not supported the prosecution
nor any other witness who accompanied accused/Lekh Ram
have been examined. However, in her statement exhibit PW-
13/A and also in supplementary statement dated 08.04.2012,
the Prosecutrix had never disclosed that rape was committed
upon her at Rampur. There is no evidence as to the relation
between accused/Sanjay Kumar and PW-6/Jawala Devi. In
respect of the medical evidence, the High Court opined that the
possibility of rape could not be ruled out, but the question
remained as to who committed the rape and moreover, the
DNA profile of the semen found over the underwear of the
Prosecutrix has not been done. It is also found, as per
evidence, that accused/Sanjay Kumar alone committed rape as
there is no charge to that effect against co-accused/Chaman
Shukla. However, accused/Chaman Shukla was never informed
by the Prosecutrix about the commission of rape.
9 . Since the FIR was lodged regarding the abduction of the
Prosecutrix, there is no allegation of rape in the FIR. In her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C the Prosecutrix stated that
11
rape was committed in the night of 31.03.2012 when she was
in the house of accused/Chaman Shukla. However, in her
Court’s statement she stated that rape was committed by
accused/Sanjay Kumar in the night of 30.03.2012 when they
were staying in the house of PW-6/Jawala Devi. She admits of
not disclosing the fact of commission of rape to anyone in the
village Rampur or to the villagers or accused/Chaman Shukla
who brought her to the Police Station, Rampur.
10. In view of the above statement on record, we are of the
view that there is material contradiction in the statement of the
Prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape and since
accused/Sanjay Kumar was not with the Prosecutrix in the
night of 31.03.2012 when she was in the house of co-
accused/Chaman Shukla and there is no allegation of rape
against accused/Chaman Shukla in whose house she stayed on
the next night, the High Court has rightly concluded that the
commission of rape by accused/Sanjay Kumar is not proved.
11. In the above view of the matter and, particularly, for the
reasons that the view taken by the High Court is one plausible
view considering the evidence on record, interference against
12
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court is not
called for. Accordingly, both the appeals challenging acquittal of
accused/Sanjay Kumar and accused/Chaman Shukla are
dismissed.
………………………………………J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.