Silence of a Child Cannot Be Misconstrued as Consent or Doubt: Supreme Court Rebukes High Court for Acquittal

Justice Must Not Bow to Time - Nearly four decades after a three-year-old child was brutally raped and left unconscious in a remote village in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has finally restored the conviction of the accused, overturning an acquittal granted by the Rajasthan High Court in 2013. In State of Rajasthan v. Chatra, the Court declared, "Justice delayed is tragic, but justice denied is unforgivable. The law cannot abandon the most vulnerable simply because time has passed."

Justice Sanjay Karol, delivering the verdict, condemned the High Court's cursory six-page judgment that had erased a conviction upheld since 1987, stating, "A six-page acquittal in a crime of this gravity is not a judgment—it is a miscarriage of justice." The Court reinstated the accused’s seven-year rigorous imprisonment, holding that the victim’s silence, the medical evidence, and the circumstances left no doubt about his guilt.

On the night of March 3, 1986, in Sureli village, Rajasthan, a child was found bleeding and unconscious, her tiny body bearing the marks of a brutal sexual assault. The man accused of this inhuman crime was Chatra, who was caught fleeing the scene with his dhoti open, leaving behind the child in a pool of blood.

The case was reported the following day by a villager, Gulab Chand, who had walked into the accused’s house and witnessed the horror firsthand. In his statement, he described, "I heard the cries of a little girl and rushed inside. The accused ran out, his clothes in disarray. She lay there, lifeless, her small frame drenched in blood."

A medical examination confirmed the worst. The doctor who treated her testified, "Her injuries were fresh. Her hymen was completely ruptured. Had the penetration been any deeper, her uterus would have been torn, leading to her death."

The Sessions Court in Tonk convicted Chatra in 1987, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the IPC. However, the Rajasthan High Court, in 2013, shockingly overturned the conviction, citing minor discrepancies in witness statements and the absence of semen traces.

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning deeply flawed, stating, "Acquittal cannot be granted on flimsy grounds, nor can inconsistencies overshadow the brutal reality of the crime. The High Court failed not only in law but in humanity."

The Supreme Court rebuked the High Court for doubting the child’s silence, declaring, "A child's tears are not proof of falsehood; they are the unspoken testimony of deep trauma. Courts must not demand words from those who have been silenced by horror."

Justice Karol did not hold back in his criticism of the High Court's casual dismissal of the trial court’s findings. "The High Court's duty was to examine evidence, not erase it. A judgment cannot be a mere formality when the crime is of such profound cruelty."

The Supreme Court ruled that the absence of testimony from the victim did not weaken the case, emphasizing, "It is unconscionable to expect a child so young to recall, articulate, or relive such trauma in court. The law must recognize that silence is often the loudest cry for justice."

Quoting from State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, the Court noted, "In cases of child rape, justice must move beyond rigid evidentiary requirements and consider the very nature of trauma itself. A child’s inability to speak cannot absolve a predator."

The Supreme Court also castigated the High Court for failing to consider the medical evidence, stating, "When a doctor testifies that the victim’s injuries were consistent with violent sexual assault, and when the accused himself is found with fresh scratches and swelling on his genitals, no further proof is required. To ignore this is to ignore the truth itself."

A Message That Justice Will Not be Defeated by Time
After reviewing all the evidence, the Supreme Court restored the conviction, reinstating the seven-year sentence originally handed down in 1987. The judgment condemned the decades-long delay in justice, declaring, "Justice must not be buried under the weight of time. No child should have to wait 40 years for their voice to be heard."

Ordering the accused to surrender within four weeks, the Court reaffirmed that sexual crimes against children demand swift and decisive action, stating, "The law must stand as a shield for those who cannot defend themselves. Today, justice is done—not just for this child, but for every child who has suffered in silence."

Justice Vikram Nath, concurring with the judgment, concluded with a powerful reminder: "The law may take time, but it will never forget. This conviction is not just for the victim, but a warning to all who prey on the innocent. Justice will find you, no matter how long it takes."

Date of Decision: March 18, 2025