Supreme Court acquits accused in kidnapping and rape case due to inconsistencies in prosecutrix’s statement: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar (2025) INSC 561 (23 April 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 April 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 561

Judges: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

When can inconsistencies in a rape victim’s statement lead to the acquittal of the accused? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, focusing on a case where the prosecutrix’s statements regarding the date and location of the alleged rape were contradictory. This judgment highlights the importance of consistent testimony in sexual assault cases. The bench, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered the verdict.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR registered on 31.03.2012 at P.S. Barmana, District Bilaspur (H.P.), concerning the alleged kidnapping and rape of a 14-year-old girl. On 30.03.2012, the prosecutrix accompanied her mother and others to listen to a religious story (‘Katha’) at Sri Naina Devi temple. While there, she was asked to take her nephew to a room to sleep. When she did not return after a long time, her mother went to check on her but found only the sleeping child. The family suspected Sanjay Kumar, due to prior acquaintance, of kidnapping her. Narender Shail (PW-1), the prosecutrix’s father, filed a complaint, leading to the FIR.

On 01.04.2012, Chaman Shukla and the prosecutrix went to the Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, where Chaman Shukla stated that he found her walking on the road at Narkanda on 30.03.2012 and took her to his home. A police party from Barmana, along with the prosecutrix’s relatives, took custody of her. Sanjay Kumar was arrested on 04.04.2012, and both the prosecutrix and Sanjay Kumar underwent medical examinations.

The investigation revealed that Sanjay Kumar allegedly kidnapped the prosecutrix in his car on 30.03.2012 and took her to the house of Jawala Devi (PW-6) in Rampur, where he allegedly raped her. The next day, she was allegedly kept in Chaman Shukla’s house, who threatened her to mislead the investigating agency. The prosecutrix’s birth certificate, family register, and other evidence were collected during the investigation. The car and a mobile phone were seized on 07.04.2012. On 11.04.2012, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Sanjay Kumar under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.), 376 (rape), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Chaman Shukla was convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Both accused appealed to the High Court.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla overturned the Trial Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 4246 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 4273 of 2013, acquitting both Sanjay Kumar and Chaman Shukla. The State of Himachal Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against this acquittal.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 363: Deals with the offence of kidnapping.
• Section 366: Addresses kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage or cause her defilement.
• Section 376: Defines and prescribes punishment for the offence of rape.
• Section 201: Pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or providing false information to protect the offender.
• Section 34: Explains the concept of common intention in criminal acts done by several persons.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh):

• Relied heavily on the prosecutrix’s statement, arguing that she was taken away by Sanjay Kumar without obstruction due to prior acquaintance.
• Submitted that the prosecutrix is a crucial witness, and the High Court erred in discarding her version.
• Argued that her testimony inspires confidence and is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Respondents (Sanjay Kumar and Chaman Shukla):

• Contended that Sanjay Kumar was falsely implicated based on suspicion of prior acquaintance, and the prosecutrix ran away willingly.
• Pointed out inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements regarding the date of the rape. She initially stated the rape occurred on March 30, 2012, but DDR entries indicated she was with Chaman Shukla that night.
• Argued that Jawala Devi (PW-6), in whose house the rape allegedly occurred, did not support the prosecution’s version.
• Claimed that the prosecution failed to produce details of telephone tower locations, which were allegedly used to trace the prosecutrix.
• Argued that no DNA examination was conducted to match the accused’s semen with the semen allegedly recovered from the prosecutrix’s clothes.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of the accused/respondents, considering the evidence on record.
2. Whether the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statement regarding the date and location of the alleged rape are material enough to discredit her testimony.
3. Whether the prosecution provided sufficient corroborative evidence to support the prosecutrix’s allegations against the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court considered the following:

• Evidence presented by the prosecution, including the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-13), statements of other witnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-6), medical reports, and documentary evidence.
• Arguments presented by the appellant/State and the respondents/accused.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Statement of the prosecutrix (PW-13): The court found material contradictions in her statement regarding the date of the alleged rape, which significantly impacted her credibility.
• Statements of other witnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-6): The court noted that key witnesses, such as PW-6 (Jawala Devi), did not support the prosecution’s version, weakening the case.
• Medical reports: The court acknowledged that the medical evidence could not definitively establish who committed the rape, and the lack of DNA profiling further complicated the matter.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statement regarding the date and location of the alleged rape. The lack of corroborative evidence and the failure of key witnesses to support the prosecution’s version also weighed heavily on the court’s mind.

Fact:Law

The court’s reasoning process can be summarized as follows:

Prosecutrix’s Statement -> Inconsistencies Found -> Lack of Corroboration -> Key Witnesses Not Supporting Prosecution -> Reasonable Doubt -> Acquittal

The court considered alternative interpretations but found that the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration created reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of rape by Sanjay Kumar beyond a reasonable doubt due to the material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statement and the lack of supporting evidence.

“In view of the above statement on record, we are of the view that there is material contradiction in the statement of the Prosecutrix as to the date of commission of rape.”

“Since accused/Sanjay Kumar was not with the Prosecutrix in the night of 31.03.2012 when she was in the house of co-accused/Chaman Shukla and there is no allegation of rape against accused/Chaman Shukla in whose house she stayed on the next night, the High Court has rightly concluded that the commission of rape by accused/Sanjay Kumar is not proved.”

“In the above view of the matter and, particularly, for the reasons that the view taken by the High Court is one plausible view considering the evidence on record, interference against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court is not called for.”

Key Takeaways

• Consistent testimony is crucial in sexual assault cases.
• Lack of corroborative evidence can undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The benefit of the doubt is given to the accused when there are material inconsistencies in the evidence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statement, coupled with a lack of corroborative evidence, can lead to the acquittal of the accused in a rape case. This judgment reinforces the importance of consistent and reliable testimony in sexual assault cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit Sanjay Kumar and Chaman Shukla. The decision was based on material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statement regarding the date and location of the alleged rape, as well as the lack of sufficient corroborative evidence to support the prosecution’s case.

Category

Parent category: Criminal Law

Child categories: Acquittal, Rape, Kidnapping, Inconsistent Testimony, Corroborative Evidence

Parent category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 366, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

1. What happens if a rape victim’s statement has inconsistencies?
   If a rape victim’s statement has material inconsistencies, it can weaken the prosecution’s case and lead to the acquittal of the accused.
2. Why is corroborative evidence important in rape cases?
   Corroborative evidence helps support the victim’s statement and strengthens the prosecution’s case, making it more likely that the accused will be convicted.
3. What does it mean when a court gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
   When a court gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused, it means that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is therefore acquitted.