A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The appeal concerns the correctness of a High Court order acquitting the respondent of Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that on 10.08.2007 the respondent entered the house of the prosecutrix and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her; the FIR was lodged on 13.08.2007 by the prosecutrix’s father. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent to 10 years RI, but a Division Bench of the High Court set aside conviction and acquitted him, citing “glaring lacunae” in the prosecution’s case. On appeal before this Court the principal questions were whether the High Court’s conclusion of acquittal suffered from misreading or perversity and whether interference was warranted despite a trial court conviction.
The record shows material weaknesses in the prosecution case:
(i) the prosecutrix and her parents did not cooperate adequately with medical examination;
(ii) vaginal swab and clothes were washed and no semen/blood linking the accused was found;
(iii) the mother was declared hostile and denied occurrence;
(iv) the father gave evasive testimony and did not explain the delay in lodging FIR; and
(v) the Forensic Science Laboratory report did not link the accused to the occurrence.
The High Court undertook a microscopic review of the evidence, held that the benefit of omissions and unexplained delay must accrue to the accused, and concluded that the accused deserved the benefit of doubt. This Court, applying settled principles restricting interference with an appellate acquittal unless based on perverse or misread evidence, refused interference and dismissed the State’s appeal.
Keywords: Rape; Unexplained delay in lodging FIR; Non-cooperation with medical examination; Hostile witness; Benefit of doubt.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2097 of 2014
iii) Judgement Date: 20 February 2025
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
vi) Author: Surya Kant, J.
vii) Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1806 : 2025 INSC 331.
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 376 and 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None stated.
x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law; Evidence; Forensic Procedure; Sexual Offences Law.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The High Court acquitted the respondent after scrutinising inconsistencies and lacunae in the prosecution case; the State challenged that acquittal. The record before this Court comprises the FIR dated 13.08.2007, medico-legal certificate and chemical examiner’s report, trial court evidence (14 prosecution witnesses), and the High Court’s reasoned judgment setting aside conviction. The prosecution theory depended heavily on the prosecutrix’s account as narrated to her parents, the subsequent lodging of the FIR, and the medico-legal processes conducted at the Regional Hospital, Hamirpur and referral to RPMC, Tanda.
The essential background facts are that the prosecutrix allegedly narrated the occurrence to her parents on their return from a hospital visit; the father ultimately lodged the FIR three days later; medical examination could not be completed because the prosecutrix resisted and parents did not permit further examination; the initial swabs were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but did not yield semen or any material linking the accused; the mother of the prosecutrix turned hostile and denied any incident; the father’s testimony was evasive and failed to explain delay; and the Trial Court nonetheless convicted based on the version accepted by it.
The High Court, on careful review, found the prosecution case suffering material infirmities: unexplained delay, lack of cooperation for medical examination, negative forensic results and hostile or evasive witnesses. Given the settled appellate principle that interference with an acquittal requires demonstration of perverse or misread evidence, the central question before this Court was whether the High Court’s acquittal could be said to be unsustainable in law.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
On the prosecution version, the prosecutrix (PW-10) was alone at home when the respondent came to the verandah, sought a matchbox, seized her arm and took her inside the room and forcibly had sexual intercourse. Her parents were away buying medicines and on return she narrated the incident; the father lodged FIR No. 346/2007 on 13.08.2007. The prosecutrix underwent initial medical examination by Dr. Sunita Galodha (PW-7) at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, who noted that the prosecutrix had normal gait and no external injuries but refused to cooperate for genital examination; vaginal swab and clothes had been washed and changed.
The prosecutrix was referred to RPMC, Tanda for opinion of gynaecologist and psychiatrist but the father did not allow further medical examination. The police collected an initial vaginal swab which was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory; the Chemical Examiner’s Report did not detect semen and did not link the accused. At trial the mother (PW-9) denied the occurrence and was declared hostile. The father (PW-8) gave evasive evidence and failed to satisfactorily explain delay in lodging FIR; an independent witness, Gram Panchayat Pradhan (PW-1), deposed that the father reported the matter to her on 13.08.2007, three days after the alleged incident.
The Trial Court evaluated the totality of evidence and convicted; the High Court re-examined the testimony, the medical records and the FSL report and acquitted. The State appealed to this Court challenging the High Court’s interference with the trial court conviction and the grant of benefit of doubt to the accused.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether the High Court’s acquittal under Sections 376 and 452 IPC is vitiated by misreading or perversity of evidence so as to warrant interference by this Court?
ii. Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and non-cooperation with medical examination negate the prosecution case and justify acquittal?
iii. Whether negative forensic findings (no semen on swabs/clothes) and hostile/evasive witnesses defeat the prosecution’s burden beyond reasonable doubt?
iv. What is the scope of interference by an appellate court where a High Court has set aside a conviction after full consideration of evidence?
F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
The State submitted that the High Court erred by disturbing concurrent findings of the Trial Court; that the prosecutrix’s testimony as a rape-victim should have been accepted despite lacunae; that delay and partial non-cooperation do not invariably destroy the prosecution case and that factual appreciation by the High Court was erroneous and insufficient to displace trial court conviction. The State urged that medical and forensic negatives are not determinative where credible testimony exists and the High Court ought to have deferred to the trial court’s acceptance of the prosecutrix’s account.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
Counsel for the respondent contended that the High Court rightly analysed documentary and oral evidence and found major infirmities: hostile maternal witness, evasive paternal testimony, unexplained delay in lodging FIR, lack of cooperation for medical examination, washed clothes and negative chemical report. Learned counsel urged that where the prosecution fails to meet its burden and materials are contradictory or missing, the accused must receive benefit of doubt and the acquittal must be sustained.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i. Section 376, IPC — offence of rape and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
ii. Section 452, IPC — house-trespass or house-breaking in relation to offence.
iii. Principles on delay in lodging FIR and its impact on credibility — as per precedent authorities cited in judgment.
iv. Forensic and medico-legal procedure principles: duty to cooperate and negative inference from non-allowance of medical examination.
I) JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court examined the High Court’s reasons and the trial record. The Court recapitulated the prosecution’s case and the medico-legal findings: the prosecutrix resisted genital examination; garments were washed and changed; the Chemical Examiner’s Report did not show semen linking the accused; mother’s denial made her a hostile witness; father’s evidence was evasive and did not account for delay. The Court emphasized the legal import of unexplained delay in lodging FIR ordinarily fatal where unaccounted and the adverse inference from non-cooperation in medical examination, referencing precedents that instruct courts to treat such lacunae seriously.
The Court reiterated the narrow scope for interfering with an appellate acquittal: interference is warranted only if the High Court’s conclusion is founded on complete misreading or is so perverse as to be unsustainable. Finding that the High Court had undertaken a microscopic and proper review of all material testimonial, medical and forensic — and had cogently concluded that benefit of doubt must go to the accused, this Court refused to disturb the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment balances respect for factual appreciation by two courts and the duty of the appellate bench to intervene only in exceptional circumstances.
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The controlling ratio is twofold: first, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and lack of explanation for change/washing of clothes or refusal to permit medical examination materially weaken the prosecution’s case and such omissions must ordinarily benefit the accused; second, this Court will not interfere with an acquittal by a High Court unless there is a demonstrable complete misreading of evidence or perversity.
On the facts, the High Court’s close scrutiny of testimonial conflicts, hostile witness status of the mother, evasive paternal statements, negative forensic results and non-cooperation during medical examination justified acquittal and precluded interference. The established principle that the prosecution bears the onus to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt underpins the decision.
b. OBITER DICTA
The Court observed, as incidental commentary, that non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape-victim gives rise to negative inferences and adversely affects credibility, citing the judiciary’s commitment to rigorous forensic and medical cooperation in sexual offence investigations. The Court also reiterated appellate restraint when confronting High Court acquittals and endorsed the High Court’s analytical method of closely examining both testimonial inconsistencies and forensic outcomes before granting the benefit of doubt.
c. GUIDELINES
i. Investigating agencies must ensure timely, unimpeded medico-legal examination of complainants in sexual offence cases and secure garments and swabs without delay.
ii. Courts must treat unexplained delay in lodging FIR as potentially fatal unless satisfactorily explained by prosecution.
iii. Where proximate witnesses (parents) become hostile or give contradictory statements, courts must reassess the totality of evidence and not rely solely on trial court acceptance.
iv. Appellate interference with High Court acquittals should be rare and limited to cases of clear misreading or perversity of evidence.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The case underscores procedural and evidentiary imperatives in sexual offence trials: immediate forensic preservation, cooperative medical examination and credible testimonial chains are vital. The prosecution’s failure to secure continuous cooperation of the prosecutrix and her parents, late FIR lodging, washed garments and negative Forensic Science results cumulatively undermined the State’s case. The High Court’s acquittal emerges as an instance of careful evidence appraisal rather than leniency; this Court’s refusal to interfere reaffirms appellate deference where the High Court’s analysis is coherent and non-perverse.
Practically, the judgment signals to investigators the cost of laxity in early forensic steps and to prosecutors the need to explain delays and contradictions robustly. For jurisprudence, the decision reiterates settled standards on FIR delays, hostile witnesses and the weight of forensic negatives while maintaining the cardinal criminal law principle that benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i. Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170.
ii. Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811.
iii. Fateh Chand v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 543.
iv. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550.
v. Assessment of the Criminal Justice System in Response to Sexual Offences, In re, (2020) 18 SCC 540.
vi. Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.
vii. Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731.
viii. Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 1 SCC 6.
ix. Gosu Jayarami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 766.
x. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dharmendra Singh, (1999) 8 SCC 325.
xi. The present case: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1806 : 2025 INSC 331.
b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376 and 452.
