If the Prosecutrix Herself Is Confused About the Date, Can Rape Be Presumed?: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Acquittal in Rape and Abduction Case

“There Are Material Contradictions in the Prosecutrix’s Statement—Conviction Cannot Rest on Uncertain Testimony” — In a crucial decision reiterating the principle that criminal convictions must rest on consistent and reliable evidence, the Supreme Court of India, on April 23, 2025, dismissed appeals filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the acquittal of two accused in a case involving charges of kidnapping, rape, and destruction of evidence.

The appeals in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Shukla stemmed from a 2012 FIR that led to the conviction by the Sessions Court of Sanjay Kumar for rape and kidnapping, and Chaman Shukla for helping to conceal the crime. However, the High Court reversed the convictions, citing key inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court refused to interfere, holding: “There is material contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape… The High Court has rightly concluded that the commission of rape by the accused is not proved.”

The incident occurred in March 2012, when the prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl, went missing from a religious event at Sri Naina Devi temple. The family alleged that Sanjay Kumar, known to the family, had abducted her. The prosecutrix was later found with Chaman Shukla, who claimed to have found her wandering and took her in.
The FIR, filed on March 31, 2012, alleged only abduction. The charge of rape surfaced later in her statement under Section 164 CrPC. Initially, she said rape occurred on March 31 in Chaman Shukla’s house. But later, during trial, she claimed it happened on March 30 in the house of PW-6, Jawala Devi, whom the prosecution cited as a witness.

However, PW-6 did not support the prosecution, and no medical or DNA evidence was presented linking the accused to the alleged act.
The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony riddled with inconsistencies. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, writing for the Bench with Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed: “In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix stated that rape was committed on 31.03.2012 in the house of accused Chaman Shukla. But in court, she claimed it happened on 30.03.2012 at the house of PW-6. These contradictions cannot be ignored.”

The Court emphasized that her failure to inform any of the people she stayed with about the alleged rape, including PW-6 and Chaman Shukla, weakens her testimony: “She categorically admitted that she did not disclose the rape to anyone in Rampur, including those with whom she stayed for two nights.”

The Bench also noted that no DNA analysis was conducted, and there was no evidence linking the accused to the semen allegedly recovered from the prosecutrix’s clothes.
High Court Was Right to Doubt—Supreme Court Backs Its Reasoning
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s cautious and balanced approach, stating: “The High Court’s view is one plausible view considering the evidence on record. Where there are contradictions and the medical or forensic evidence does not support the prosecution, courts must lean towards acquittal.”

On the allegation of rape, the Bench held: “The best evidence was that of PW-6, in whose house rape was allegedly committed—but she did not support the prosecution. There is no relation established between her and the accused either.”
The Court reminded that criminal jurisprudence requires guilt to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, especially in sexual offence cases where the sole testimony of the prosecutrix must be of unimpeachable credibility if not corroborated by other evidence.

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals by the State, holding that the acquittal recorded by the High Court was legally sustainable, and interference in the absence of compelling reasons was unwarranted.
“There being no compelling ground to disbelieve the High Court’s reasoning, and the contradictions in the prosecution case being glaring, the appeals are dismissed.”

This judgment serves as a strong reminder that courts must tread cautiously where evidence is inconsistent, and the liberty of individuals is at stake, even in emotionally charged cases involving minors and allegations of rape.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2025