Victim’s Testimony in Rape Cases Cannot Be Disregarded Merely Due to Lack of Physical Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in Heinous POCSO Case

Releasing the petitioner on bail will interfere with the fair trial,”  - High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dismissed a regular bail plea in Shankar Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, arising from allegations of aggravated sexual assault on a 7-year-old child under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court found that “prima facie, the petitioner’s involvement in the crime is established” through the victim’s statement and forensic evidence. The bench, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla, held that the accused, being a close relative of the victim, posed a risk of influencing witnesses, thereby denying bail to secure a fair trial.

The petitioner, Shankar Lal, was arrested on 5th December 2024 based on FIR No. 24 of 2024 registered at Women Police Station BCS, Shimla. The FIR was lodged by the victim’s mother, who stated that on 1st December 2024, while visiting her parental home, her 7-year-old daughter went to the petitioner’s house, returning later in a frightened state. Upon repeated questioning, the child disclosed that the petitioner had raped her.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, denied all allegations, claiming a false implication due to an ongoing land dispute between the families. He argued that “no blood or semen was detected in the articles sent to the FSL for analysis” and contended that he was the sole breadwinner with deep roots in society, unlikely to abscond.

The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Mr. Gautam Sood, strongly opposed the bail, stating that “the petitioner had breached the confidence reposed by the victim’s mother” and had committed a heinous crime against a child within the family fold. It was also submitted that obscene data and incriminating photographs were recovered from the petitioner’s mobile phone.

Justice Kainthla evaluated the bail application in light of established legal principles laid down in several Supreme Court rulings including Ajwar v. Waseem [(2024) 10 SCC 768], Ramratan v. State of M.P. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068], and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 10 SCC 77].

Quoting from the Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem, the Court reiterated: “The Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations... the gravity of the offence... probability of tampering with the witnesses... and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.”

Applying this to the case at hand, the Court remarked: “The medical report does not rule out the possibility of sexual assault on the victim. This offers, prima facie, corroboration of the victim’s testimony regarding the rape.”

Furthermore, the Court placed significant weight on the digital evidence: “The victim’s account is also supported by data extracted from the petitioner’s mobile phone, which contained photographs taken by the victim. Additionally, obscene material was found... These circumstances, prima facie, demonstrate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime.”

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of a false case due to property dispute: “Nothing was brought on record to substantiate this fact... the plea that a false case was made due to the dispute over the land is, prima facie, not acceptable.”

In addressing the issue of potential witness tampering, Justice Kainthla observed: “It was submitted that the statement of the victim is yet to be recorded and the petitioner can influence her in case of his release on bail. Keeping in view the relationship between the victim and the petitioner, this apprehension has some basis.”

On the absence of physical evidence like blood or semen, the Court clarified: “This is a matter to be considered during the trial, but prima facie, the victim’s statement in a rape case is entitled to significant weight and cannot be disregarded simply because it lacks independent corroboration.”

Finally, denying the bail, the Court emphasized: “Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail... Releasing the petitioner on bail will interfere with the fair trial.”

The High Court firmly held that in serious offences under POCSO, particularly where the accused shares a close familial relationship with the child victim, the victim’s statement — if credible — forms strong prima facie material to deny bail. The presence of corroborative digital evidence further weakened the petitioner’s case. The Court's decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protect child victims and uphold the integrity of trial proceedings.

Date of Decision: 10th March 2025