Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence

“The Conduct of the Victim Was Unnatural and Improbable, Her Statement Fails to Inspire Confidence” –In a significant judgment High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla acquitted Kanwar Singh, who was earlier convicted by a Fast Track Special Court for allegedly raping his minor granddaughter. The Division Bench of Justices Sushil Kukreja and Virender Singh allowed the appeal filed by the accused, setting aside the conviction under Sections 376(3) and 506(II) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not of "sterling quality" and suffered from serious inconsistencies and improbabilities. Emphasizing the need for a high standard of reliability when conviction is sought on the sole testimony of the victim, the Bench held, "While conviction can be based on sole testimony, it must be of sterling quality. Here, the conduct of the victim was unnatural and improbable. Her statement failed to inspire confidence."

“Delay in FIR and Contradictory Statements Raise Grave Doubts” – Court Finds 21-Day Delay Unexplained

The incident allegedly occurred on 6 December 2018, but the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged only on 27 December 2018. The prosecutrix claimed she was threatened by the accused not to disclose the incident, but this assertion was absent from both the FIR and her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

The Court was categorical in holding that the 21-day delay in lodging the FIR, without any plausible and consistent explanation, vitiated the prosecution's case. It observed, "Delay per se is not always fatal, especially in sexual offences. However, in the present case, the delay is unexplained, inconsistent across statements, and combined with the conduct of the prosecutrix, it creates serious doubt about the prosecution story."

The Court highlighted how the prosecutrix’s version of the date of disclosure to her mother varied from that of her parents. Notably, while the victim stated she disclosed the incident on December 25, the mother claimed it was December 22, and the father claimed he was informed as early as December 6.

Medical Evidence Fails to Corroborate Alleged Repeated Sexual Assault

The medical examination, conducted 21 days after the alleged last incident, found no signs of external or internal injuries or any indication of sexual assault. The examining doctor deposed that there were no injuries on the victim's private parts, nor any evidence of recent or past sexual activity.

The Bench observed, “According to the victim, this was not a one-time incident, but the fourth instance of rape. Even so, there were no marks or injuries. This, coupled with lack of timely disclosure or spontaneous complaint, adds to the unreliability of the prosecution's case.”

Age Determination: Manipulated Records and Discrepancies Render Claim of Minority Unreliable

A critical component of the prosecution’s case hinged on the age of the victim being under 18, invoking Section 376(3) IPC and POCSO provisions. However, the Court found multiple discrepancies in the age documents and oral testimony. While the victim and her parents claimed her birthdate was 11.11.2006, the Panchayat records showed 28.02.2006, and the school records listed it as 29.02.2006 – an impossible date in a non-leap year.

The school clerk admitted that the entry was made based on a primary school certificate, but no witness from that school was examined. The Panchayat Secretary acknowledged overwriting in the records. The Court concluded, “Manipulated documents and inconsistent oral testimonies regarding the date of birth of the victim raise a serious doubt about her being below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offence.”

The Bench cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Rishi Pal Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) and Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) to reiterate that conclusive proof of age must come from credible, unimpeachable documents such as matriculation certificates or birth certificates from public authorities. In the absence of reliable age determination, the benefit must go to the accused.

Sole Testimony Not Enough When Conduct Appears Improbable and Inconsistent

While recognizing that a conviction can rest solely on the victim’s testimony, the Court emphasized that such testimony must be “natural, trustworthy, and worthy of reliance.” In this case, the prosecutrix did not raise an alarm despite being in a residential locality with adjoining homes and people nearby. The Bench noted that even the father of the victim admitted that sounds from the accused’s house could be heard in neighboring houses.

The Court concluded, “The prosecutrix had ample opportunity to raise alarm. Her silence for 19 days, lack of injuries, and the improbability of the incident occurring unnoticed in a busy area makes her version doubtful.”

Trial Court Failed to Evaluate Evidence Properly

The High Court was also critical of the trial court’s approach, observing that it did not properly assess the inconsistencies or the legal standards governing appreciation of testimony in sexual offence cases. The Bench noted, “The learned Trial Judge has neither discussed the evidence available on record nor properly appreciated the contradictions in testimony regarding age, delay, and conduct.”

Conviction Set Aside, Accused Acquitted

In its concluding paragraph, the Court declared: “We are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges.”

The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case and imposed a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 in accordance with Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Date of Decision: 09.12.2025