Unexplained Delay, Contradictory Testimony, and Lack of Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain a Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case

A Conviction in a Case of Sexual Assault Must Rest on Reliable and Cogent Evidence, Not on Mere Allegations: In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the acquittal of Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu, who was previously convicted and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for rape and house trespass under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court had found him guilty, but the High Court overturned the conviction, granting the accused the benefit of the doubt.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while delivering its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 2097 of 2014, firmly held that: “The prosecution must stand on firm and consistent evidence, particularly in cases involving grave charges like rape. When contradictions in testimony, unexplained delays in filing the complaint, and lack of medical and forensic corroboration are present, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.”

Rejecting the State’s plea to restore the conviction, the Supreme Court made it clear that mere allegations, without corroborative evidence, cannot form the foundation of a criminal conviction.

"A Three-Day Delay in Filing the FIR Without Justification Weakens the Prosecution’s Case": Supreme Court Finds Glaring Inconsistencies

The prosecution alleged that on August 10, 2007, while the prosecutrix’s parents were away, the accused entered her house under the pretext of asking for a matchbox and sexually assaulted her. It was further alleged that she narrated the incident to her parents when they returned, and after consulting a local panchayat leader, the father lodged an FIR on August 13, 2007.

The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about the three-day delay in lodging the FIR, stating that: “Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in sexual assault cases raises serious doubts regarding the credibility of the prosecution’s version. The father of the prosecutrix did not report the incident immediately and only went to the police after speaking to a Panchayat Pradhan, which suggests that there was uncertainty in the minds of the family regarding the occurrence.”

Referring to the testimony of Nirmala Devi, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat (PW-1), the Court noted that she confirmed that the father of the prosecutrix approached her only on August 13, 2007, three days after the alleged incident. The Supreme Court observed that: “The law does not mandate that every delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution. However, where the delay is not explained at all and instead suggests hesitation or afterthought, it must be considered as a factor that weakens the case.”

"When the Mother of the Prosecutrix Denies the Incident, the Court Must Exercise Caution in Relying on the Sole Testimony of the Victim"

The Supreme Court found it significant that the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-9) completely denied that the incident ever took place. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing material emerged from her deposition to support the prosecution’s case.

The Court noted that the father of the prosecutrix (PW-8) also made evasive statements, failing to provide any clear explanation regarding the delay in reporting the incident. The judges observed that:

“The father’s testimony does not inspire confidence, particularly when read alongside the statement of the Panchayat Pradhan, who stated that he reported the incident only after three days. The silence of the prosecutrix’s mother further weakens the credibility of the allegations.”

"Medical Evidence and Forensic Reports Do Not Corroborate the Allegations": Supreme Court Finds No Independent Proof of Sexual Assault

The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sunita Galodha (PW-7), who did not find any signs of physical injury, struggle, or evidence of sexual assault. The medical report noted that there were no marks of injury on any part of her body, her clothes had been washed and changed, and no blood or semen was found on her vaginal swab.

The Court further noted that the forensic science report failed to link the accused to the alleged crime, and semen was not found on any of the exhibits. The prosecutrix herself did not cooperate with the medical examination, refusing even the most basic tests.

Referring to these findings, the Supreme Court held that: “In a case where the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution’s case and where the prosecutrix refuses to cooperate with the medical examination, the evidentiary value of her allegations is significantly diminished.”

Citing Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 170, the Court reiterated the well-settled principle that where the medical and forensic evidence contradict the prosecution’s case, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt.

"The High Court’s Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned in the Absence of Compelling Reasons": Supreme Court Declines to Interfere

Rejecting the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that interference in an acquittal is justified only when the findings are perverse or completely contrary to the evidence on record.

The Court emphasized that: “An acquittal should not be overturned merely because another view is possible. The High Court has thoroughly examined the prosecution’s evidence and found significant contradictions. This Court sees no reason to interfere in a well-reasoned judgment that grants the accused the benefit of the doubt.”

Observing that the High Court had minutely examined the evidence and rightly concluded that the case against the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court concluded: “Where two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must prevail. The presumption of innocence cannot be lightly displaced in the absence of clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, reinforcing the fundamental principles of criminal justice that require a conviction to be based on unimpeachable evidence, free from contradictions and doubts.

The ruling underscores that:

• Unexplained and unjustified delay in lodging an FIR weakens the prosecution’s case.

• Contradictory testimonies from key witnesses, particularly family members of the prosecutrix, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations.

• Medical and forensic evidence that fails to corroborate the prosecution’s version must be given due weight in determining the guilt of the accused.

Reaffirming the presumption of innocence and the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court concluded that: “A criminal conviction cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or conjecture. The rule of law requires that an accused must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and where such doubt exists, it must be resolved in favor of the accused.”

Date of Decision : February 20, 2025