Justice Served? Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal in Himachal Rape and Abduction Saga.


23 April 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Rape >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging a judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh that acquitted two men, Sanjay Kumar and Chaman Shukla, who were previously convicted by a trial court for offences related to the alleged abduction and rape of a minor girl. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, found the High Court's decision to be a plausible interpretation of the record, particularly noting inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements.

The case originated from an FIR filed in March 2012, alleging that Sanjay Kumar had kidnapped a 14-year-old girl (PW-13) from a temple premises. The prosecution's case rested heavily on the testimony of the prosecutrix. It was alleged that Sanjay Kumar enticed her into his car and took her to Rampur, where she was kept overnight at the house of Jawala Devi (PW-6), during which time the alleged rape occurred. The following day, she was taken to the house of Chaman Shukla, who allegedly threatened her to give a false statement.


 

 

Upon being found with Chaman Shukla, the prosecutrix was taken to the police station in Rampur. In her initial statement and later under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there were discrepancies regarding the date and location of the alleged rape. While the trial court convicted Sanjay Kumar for abduction, rape, and destruction of evidence, and Chaman Shukla for destruction of evidence, the High Court overturned these convictions.

The High Court, in its detailed judgment, highlighted significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements regarding when and where the alleged rape took place. Notably, the prosecutrix initially stated the rape occurred on the night of March 31st while she was at Chaman Shukla's residence. However, in her court testimony, she claimed the rape was committed by Sanjay Kumar on the night of March 30th at Jawala Devi's house. She also admitted to not disclosing the alleged rape to Jawala Devi or her family, or even to Chaman Shukla and his family, despite spending time in their homes. Furthermore, she did not inform anyone during her journey from Bilaspur to Rampur that she had been kidnapped.

The High Court also pointed out that Jawala Devi (PW-6), in whose house the rape allegedly occurred, did not support the prosecution's version. Additionally, no other witnesses who were present when the prosecutrix was found in Rampur were examined. The High Court also noted the absence of DNA profiling of semen found on the prosecutrix's underwear to match it with the accused.
Given these inconsistencies and the lack of corroborating evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to conclusively prove the charge of rape against Sanjay Kumar. Regarding Chaman Shukla, the 

High Court noted that the prosecutrix had not informed him about the alleged rape.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and the High Court's judgment, concurred with the acquittal. The apex court observed that the contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, particularly concerning the date of the alleged rape, were significant. Since Sanjay Kumar was not with the prosecutrix on the night she initially claimed the rape occurred, and there were no allegations of rape against Chaman Shukla during the time she was with him, the High Court's conclusion that the rape by Sanjay Kumar was not proven was deemed a plausible view of the evidence.

Emphasizing that interference with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court is generally not warranted when the view taken is a plausible one based on the evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, thereby upholding the acquittal of Sanjay Kumar and Chaman Shukla.


Section 164., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973