STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus SANJAY KUMAR @ SUNNY

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 15-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 237 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
SANJAY KUMAR @ SUNNY 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of2016) 
DECEMBER 15, 2016 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.376(2)(j), 506 - Rape of 9 years old 
girl - Respondent-accused paternal uncle of the prosecutrix -
Incident not disclosed by prosecutrix to anyone - Fact of rape came 
to knowledge of mother 3 years after the incident when she 
complained of stomach ache and was shown to the gynecologist -
Reporting to police thereafter - Conviction ulss.376(2)(j), 506 by 
trial court based on testimony ofprosecutrix, her mother and medical 
evidence - Acquittal by High Court - States appeal against 
acquittal - Held: The version of prosecution and her mother was in 
sync with each other - High Coun was swayed by the delay in 
reporting the matter - The ground reality is that it is not easy to 
lodge a complaint of this nature exposing prosecutrix to the risk of 
social stigma which unfortunately prevails in our society - Person 
accused was none other than her own uncle - Decision to lodge 
FIR becomes difficult and hard when accused happens to be a family 
member - Evidence brought on record contained positive proof, 
credible sequence of events and factual truth linking the respondent 
with rape of the prosecutrix - Conviction recorded by trial court 
restored and respondent awarded rigorous imprisonment for 
12 years. 
Crime against women: Rape victim - Proof of offence - Held: 
The testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and 
unless there are compelling reasons which necessi.tate looking for 
corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to 
act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict 
the accused -
The victim of rape is not an accomplice and her 
evidence can be acted upon without corroboration - She stands at 
a higher pedestal than an injured witness does - It is only when the 
court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek 
corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her 
version - Penal Code, 1860. 
237 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
238 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Apart from some minor and trivial discrepancies 
with regard to the period of stomach ache or about the medicine 
taken from the local doctor/chemist, insofar as material particulars 
of the incident are concerned, version of prosecutrix and her 
mother is in sync with each other. As per the prosecutrix, she 
was called by the respondent to his room, which is on the first 
floor of the house. Unmindful of what could be the motive of an 
uncle to call her, she obliged as a dutiful child. Her mental faculties 
had not developed fully; she was in the age of innocence; unaware 
of the dreadful consequences. Further, at the time when she was 
being sexually assaulted, her mouth was gagged so that she was 
not able to scream and after the incident she was threatened not 
to disclose this incident to anybody. In fact, she kept mum out of 
this fear. It is quite understandable that a nine year old child, 
after undergoing traumatic experience and inflicted with threats, 
would be frozen with fear and she could not find voice to speak 
against her uncle. Incident came to light and tragedy struck on 
the prosecutrix only when her mother noticed that she was 
continuously suffering from stomach ache and was, therefore, 
taken to a Gynecologist for her treatment. But for the above, 
matter may not have come to light. It is only after she was 
medically examined by Gynecologist (PW-8), and formed the 
opinion that the prosecutrix had been sexually assaulted forcibly 
about 2-3 years ago, since her hymen was rnptured and her 
external and internal sphincters were also torn, that PW-1 queried 
the prosecutrix and she revealed the incident, hitherto hidden 
by her from the entire world out of fear, not only as a result of the 
threats extended by the respondent but for varied other reasons. 
The reluctance on the part of the prosecutrix in not narrating the 
incident to anybody for a period of three years and not sharing 
the same event with her mother, is clearly understandable. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the trial court accepted the 
explanation for delay as satisfactory by giving detailed reasons, 
the High Court was swayed by this delay in reporting the matter 
with omnibus statement that it is not satisfactorily exp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.