LexTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus RAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1806 : 2025 INSC 331 The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu (Criminal Appeal No. 2097 of 2014) 20 February 2025 [Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused u/ss.376 and 452 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376 and 452 – Rape – Non-allowance of medical examination by prosecutrix – Delay in lodging FIR – Trial court convicted the accused-respondent for forcibly committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, however, acquitted by the High Court due to glaring lacunae in the prosecution case – Interference: Held: Interference not called for – Mother of the prosecutrix declared hostile – Father of the prosecutrix made evasive statements and failed to explain the delay in reporting the matter – Unexplained delay in lodging FIRs commonly considered fatal to the prosecution’s case – On facts, delay was never acknowledged and necessary benefit of such omission must accrue to the accused – Non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape-victim raises negative inferences against them – Prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully cooperated with the medical staff during the medical examination, adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events – Furthermore, no good reasons can be ascribed to the complete lack of assistance that the complainants tendered to the authorities, apart from their contradictory stances before the court – Also, High Court’s invariable conclusion that the prosecutrix was not mentally unsound – Except where this Court finds that the conclusion drawn by the High Court is based upon a complete misreading of the evidence on record, or where its conclusions * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1807 The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu are so perverse that the same cannot be sustained, then only might a judgment of acquittal warrant interference – On facts, the High Court microscopically examined the entire evidence before firmly opining that the accused deserves the benefit of the doubt. [Paras 7-10, 12, 13] Case Law Cited Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 170; Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab [2020] 6 SCR 508 : (2020) 8 SCC 811; Fateh Chand v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 543; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal [2011] 1 SCR 406 : (2011) 2 SCC 550; Assessment of the Criminal Justice System in Response to Sexual Offences, In re (2020) 18 SCC 540; Dola v. State of Odisha (2018) 18 SCC 695; Sham Sunder v. Puran [1990] 1 Supp. SCR 662 : (1990) 4 SCC 731; Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of Gujarat [1976] 1 SCR 251 : (1976) 1 SCC 6; Gosu Jayarami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2011] 9 SCR 503 : (2011) 11 SCC 766; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dharmendra Singh [1999] 3 Supp. SCR 52 : (1999) 8 SCC 325 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Rape; Forcible sexual intercourse; Prosecutrix not cooperating in medical examination; Glaring lacunae in prosecution case; Hostile witness; Evasive statements by prosecution witness; Delay in lodging FIR; Unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case; Medico-legal certificate; Benefit of omission by prosecution to accused; Non-allowance of medical examination by rape victim; Complete misreading of evidence; Judgment of acquittal warrant interference; Prosecutrix not mentally unsound. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2097 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2012 of the High Court of H.P. at Shimla in CRLA No. 8 of 2009 1808 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Sarthak Chiller, Rohit Lochav. Advs. for the Respondent: Jogy Scaria, Mrs. Beena Victor, Ms. M. Priya, Ashwani Kumar Soni. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent had been allowed. The High Court, while acquitting him under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the “IPC”), has set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 02.01.2009, holding the respondent guilty of the aforementioned offences with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.