Supreme Court Holds Minor Contradictions Cannot Override Credible Testimony of Prosecutrix in Rape Cases

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in law by setting aside the trial court’s conviction of the respondent-accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies and an allegedly improbable distance calculation that had no bearing on the core factum of sexual assault. The Court reaffirmed that medical evidence is corroborative in nature and cannot override credible ocular testimony, particularly the unshaken identification of the accused by the child victim who withstood rigorous cross-examination. The Court held that minor discrepancies regarding travel time, family quarrels, or procedural delays in FIR registration do not constitute reasonable doubt when the prosecutrix’s testimony inspires confidence and is corroborated by medical evidence of sexual assault, parental testimony, and the absence of any credible challenge to the accused’s identification. The Court further deprecated the persistent violation of Section 228-A IPC regarding non-disclosure of sexual assault victim identities across court records and directed all High Court Registrars General to ensure strict compliance with this mandate in all pending cases predating Nipun Saxena v. Union of India.

Summary: The case arose from the sexual assault of a nine-year-old girl by her neighbour on August 27, 2007, in Himachal Pradesh, where the prosecutrix was sent to fetch buttermilk and was taken into a cowshed by the accused. Upon returning home, she disclosed the assault to her mother, and subsequently to her father upon his return from work that evening, leading to the registration of FIR No. 355 of 2007 the following morning. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment, based on the testimony of sixteen prosecution witnesses including the victim, her parents, medical officers, and the person from whom she fetched buttermilk. The medical examination conducted on August 28, 2007, revealed lacerated wounds on the paraurethral region, torn hymen, and exposure to sexual act, with human blood detected on the victim’s clothing. The High Court, however, acquitted the accused in June 2014, finding material contradictions in witness statements regarding the timing of disclosure, the distance traveled by the prosecutrix (deeming a sixteen-kilometer round trip in two hours improbable), ongoing family animosity over grass theft, and the delay in lodging the FIR. The High Court also rejected the medical evidence as insufficient to sustain conviction in view of these surrounding circumstances. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined the principles governing appreciation of child witness testimony, the distinction between material and minor discrepancies, and the limited scope of interference under Article 136 when courts below return divergent findings. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had adopted an overly technical approach, attaching undue importance to trivial variations in witness accounts while ignoring the consistent core narrative of sexual assault and the accused’s positive identification by the victim. The Court noted that the prosecutrix withstood cross-examination without wavering on the essential facts, that her mother and father corroborated her disclosure, and that the medical evidence squarely supported the assault. The Court distinguished between normal discrepancies arising from human memory limitations and material contradictions affecting the foundation of the prosecution case, holding that the High Court’s reliance on distance calculations and family quarrels to discredit medical evidence was legally unsustainable.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment of acquittal dated June 3, 2014, and restored the trial court’s conviction of the respondent-accused under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act with the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000. The accused was directed to surrender forthwith and serve the remainder of his sentence. The Court further directed that copies of the judgment be sent to all Registrars General of High Courts to ensure strict compliance with Section 228-A IPC regarding non-disclosure of sexual assault victim identities in all pending matters predating the judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, emphasizing that the victim’s name had been improperly disclosed throughout the records in the present case in contravention of long-standing statutory protections. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.