STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus CHATRA

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 17-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 95 : 2025 INSC 360
State of Rajasthan 
v. 
Chatra
(Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2017)
18 March 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the conviction of the 
respondent-accused under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860 for the 
rape of a minor girl and acquitting him.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Evidence of a child witness-victim – 
Appreciation of – Rape of minor girl – High Court reversed 
the conviction of the respondent-accused inter alia holding 
that the victim-child witness was indifferent/silent about the 
incident which was unlikely if the incident would have been 
true, and acquitted him – Challenge to:
Held: There is no hard and fast rule qua testing the competency of a 
child witness to testify at trial – In the present case, though the child 
witness-victim (‘V’) did not depose anything about the commission 
of the offence against her however, her silence cannot accrue to the 
benefit of the respondent – Her silence cannot be equated with the 
silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix – There is no hard and 
fast rule that in the absence of the testimony of the prosecutrix, a 
conviction cannot stand, particularly when other evidence, medical 
and circumstantial, is available pointing to such a conclusion – The 
absence of evidence of the prosecutrix is, not in all cases, a negative 
to be accounted for in the prosecution case – PW-14, the Doctor stated 
that the cause of injury to ‘V’ can be through sexual intercourse – This 
along with the finding of injury on the genital organ of the accused 
being possible only due to forceful intercourse with a minor female, 
leads to a circumstance pointing to the respondent having committed 
the offense against ‘V’ – Acquittal of the respondent is set aside, 
conviction restored – Circumstantial evidence. [Paras 14, 17, 20-22]
Evidence – Testimony of a child witness – Principles – 
Discussed. [Para 14]
* Author
96
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat [2018] 12 SCR 672 : 
(2019) 17 SCC 523 – relied on.
Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807; Geeta Devi v. State of 
U.P [2022] 1 SCR 428; Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P. [2003] 
Supp. 4 SCR 792 : (2003) 8 SCC 551; State of Karnataka v. 
Puttaraja [2003] Supp. 6 SCR 274: (2004) 1 SCC 475; Dinesh v. 
State of Rajasthan [2006] 2 SCR 793 : (2006) 3 SCC 771; Nipun 
Saxena v. Union of India [2018] 14 SCR 755 : (2019) 2 SCC 703; 
State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [2002] 3 SCR 753 : (2002) 5 
SCC 745; Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 
5 SCC 341; Hari Om v. State of U.P. [2021] 13 SCR 49 : (2021) 4 
SCC 345; Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka [2001] 1 SCR 1: 
(2001) 9 SCC 129; State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar [2016] 9 SCR 
237 : (2017) 2 SCC 51; Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC 
OnLine SC 777; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, 2025 
INSC 261: 2025 SCC OnLine 390; State of M.P v. Ramesh [2011] 5 
SCR 1 : (2011) 4 SCC 786; Panchhi v. State of U.P. [1998] Supp. 1 
SCR 40 : (1998) 7 SCC 177; State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit [2000] 1 
SCR 855 : (2000) 3 SCC 70; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State 
of Maharashtra [1985] SCR 88: (1984) 4 SCC 116; Ramakant 
Rai v. Madan Rai [2003] Supp. 4 SCR 17 : (2003) 12 SCC 395; 
K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. [1979] 2 SCR 363 : (1979) 1 SCC 
355; State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat (2018) 11 SCC 
163; Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P [2021] 3 SCR 470 : (2021) 
16 SCC 225; Mange v. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349; State 
of Punjab v. Kartar Singh [1994] 2 SCR 375 : (1994) 3 SCC 569; 
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P [2015] 5 SCR 122 : (2015) 
11 SCC 69 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Rape; Child victim; Child witness; Evidence of a child witness; 
Sexual assault; Injury to private parts; Sexual intercourse; Absence 
of evidence of the prosecutrix; Injury on genital organ; Minor female; 
Forceful intercourse; Silence; Circumstantial evidence; Chain of 
circumstances; Absence of the testimony of the prosecutrix.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
97
State of Rajasthan v. Chatra
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
586 of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2013 of the High Court 
of Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRA No. 503 of 1987
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G., Milind Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Ranbir Singh Ya
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.