Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court
Material Contradiction In Statement Of Prosecutrix As To The Date Of Commission Of Rape: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of 2 Men
|The appeals before the Supreme Court called into question the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in an alleged case of rape.
The Supreme Court upheld the order of acquittal passed in favour of two rape accused after noting the material contradiction in the statement of the Prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape. The Apex Court also considered the fact that no allegations of rape were made against one out of the two accused persons.
The appeals before the Apex Court called into question the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, setting aside the conviction and sentence of accused Sanjay Kumar under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, and accused Chaman Shukla under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said, “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 coaccused/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.”
AOR Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava represented the Appellant while Advocate Sumesh Dhawan represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The father of the prosecutrix was addressing a religious story (Katha) in a temple at Sohra Buins, and his wife, along with her daughter (PW-2) and the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, also went to listen to the Katha. During Katha, the sister of the prosecutrix asked her to take her son, aged about two years, to bed for sleeping in one of the rooms 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 prosecutrix in the room. PW-2 informed others, and they raised a suspicion that the accused/Sanjay Kumar, had kidnapped the prosecutrix. A complaint was made, and an FIR was registered.
The accused/Chaman Shukla, along with the prosecutrix, went to the Police Station and informed that he had found her walking on the road at Narkanda and brought her to his home. The Prosecutrix was handed over to her parents while the accused/Sanjay Kumar, was arrested. During investigation, it was found that accused/Sanjay Kumar kidnapped the prosecutrix in his Car and spent that night in the house of one Jawala Devi (PW-6) where he allegedly committed rape on her.
The Trial commenced, and the accused/Sanjay Kumar, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000. The accused/Chaman Shukla, was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year. When the matter reached the High Court, the accused persons were acquitted. It was against this order that the appeal was filed.
Reasoning
The Bench noticed that in the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court, after an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record, it was held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the accused/respondents. 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. As per the reports, the DNA profile of the semen found on the underwear of the Prosecutrix had not been done. It was also found, as per evidence, that accused/Sanjay Kumar could have alone committed rape as there was 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.
There was no allegation of rape in the FIR since the FIR was lodged regarding the abduction of the Prosecutrix. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C the Prosecutrix stated that rape was committed in the night of March 31, 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 March 30, 2012 when they were staying in the house of PW-6/Jawala Devi. She had also admitted 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.
Thus, the Bench found that there was material contradiction in the statement of the Prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape and the accused/Sanjay Kumar was not with the Prosecutrix in the night of March 31, 2012. Moreover, there was no allegation of rape against accused/Chaman Shukla in whose house she stayed on the next night.
Concluding that the High Court took a plausible view, the Bench dismissed the appeals challenging the acquittal of both accused persons.
Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 561)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Advocates Yash Jain, Saurabh Pandey, Ravi Bakshi, AOR S. Gowthaman, Advocates Manvendra Pratap Singh, Selvam P., Sameer Aslam
Respondent: Advocate Sumesh Dhawan, AOR Priya Puri, Advocates Ankita Bajpai,Kholi Rakuzhuro,Raghav Dembla, Vatsal Kak, Sharad Kumar Puri, Ritim Mangla