Holding

The High Court's acquittal is upheld as the prosecution failed to establish the offences due to unexplained delay, hostile witnesses, and lack of medical/forensic evidence, and there is no misreading of evidence warranting interference.

Summary

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed the High Court’s order acquitting Rajesh Kumar (Munnu) of offences under Sections 376 and 452 IPC, alleging that the trial court’s conviction was based on sufficient evidence. The alleged incident occurred on 13 August 2007, but the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, and the victim and her parents did not cooperate with medical examinations, resulting in no forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime. The mother of the victim was declared hostile and the father gave evasive statements, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court held that the unexplained delay, hostile witnesses, and lack of medical/forensic corroboration create a fatal gap in the prosecution, and that the High Court’s findings did not misread the evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR warrants acquittal under Sections 376 and 452 IPC.
Whether the victim's and parents' non‑cooperation in medical examination can be held against the prosecution.
Whether hostile or evasive testimony of the victim's parents defeats the prosecution’s case.
Whether the High Court’s judgment involved a misreading of evidence justifying interference by the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376, s. 452

Subjects

RapeForcible sexual intercourseProsecutrix not cooperating in medical examinationGlaring lacunae in prosecution caseHostile witnessEvasive statements by prosecution witnessDelay in lodging FIRUnexplained delay fatal to prosecution caseMedico-legal certificateBenefit of omission by prosecution to accusedNon-allowance of medical examination by rape victimComplete misreading of evidenceJudgment of acquittal warrant interferenceProsecutrix not mentally unsound

Judgment

[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.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the State at a considerable
length. The record has been perused.
3. The prosecution case is that on 13.08.2007, the prosecutrix
(PW-10) through her father lodged FIR No. 346/2007 under Sections
452 and 376 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Hamirpur against the
accused-respondent. It was alleged therein that when her parents
(PW-8 & PW-9) had gone to the hospital for purchasing medicines
around noon, the respondent came to the varandah of her house
and asked for a match box. Finding her alone, the accused allegedly
caught her from the arm and took her inside the room. Thereafter,
he forcibly committed sexually intercourse with her. This incident
was apparently narrated by the prosecutrix to her parents when they
returned, who subsequently lodged the FIR.
4. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sunita Galodha
(PW-7) at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, where she was found to be of
unsound mind as she did not cooperate in her medical examination.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1809

The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu

As the factum of sexual intercourse could not be ascertained, the
prosecutrix was further referred to the RPMC Hospital at Tanda
(Dharamshala) for the opinion of their Gynecologist and Psychiatrist.
However, the father of the prosecutrix did not allow for any medical
examination to happen. Nevertheless, the initial vaginal swab
collected by the police was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for
medical analysis.
5. The Trial Court on the basis of examination of prosecution evidence,
consisting of 14 witnesses besides statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, convicted him
under Sections 452 and 376 of IPC; and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, besides the requisite fine.
6. Against this, the respondent preferred an appeal before the High
Court, which has been allowed vide the impugned judgment. The
High Court has succinctly demonstrated some of the glaring lacunae
in the prosecution case, which even the learned State counsel before
us, is unable to satisfactorily justify. We say so for the reasons set
out below.
7. The present case is one where the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-9)
entered the witness box and unfortunately did not support prosecution
case. She completely denied that any occurrence, similar to the one
described in the FIR, ever took place. She was, accordingly, declared
hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Of course,
nothing material could be extracted from her cross-examination.
8. The father of the prosecutrix (PW-8) also entered the witness box,
and it is an admitted fact that he, too, made evasive statements,
largely restricted to the narration of the events preceding the trial.
We may note at this junction, that his statement fails to explain the
delay in reporting the matter, and the lodging of the FIR. While he
submitted that he reported the alleged incident to the police as soon
as he was apprised of the same, we are constrained to note that
the such assertion does not inspire much confidence. We say so,
keeping in mind the statement made by Nirmala Devi, Pradhan of
Gram Panchayat (PW-1), who simply deposed that the father of the
prosecutrix came to her house after three days of the incident, i.e.
on 13.08.2007, and informed her about the occurrence. She then
advised him to report the matter to the police, he finally went and
1810 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

lodged the police report. While it is trite law that unexplained delay
in lodging FIRs is commonly considered fatal to the prosecution’s
case,1 we observe that in the instant case the delay was never even
acknowledged – much less explained. Thus, it is our considered
opinion that the necessary benefit of such an omission must accrue
to the accused-respondent.
9. The other significant evidence on record comprises the statement of
Dr. Sunita Galodha of Regional Hospital of Hameerpur, who issued
the medico-legal certificate (Ext.PW7/B) based on the Chemical
Examiner’s Report (Ext.PW6/A). The High Court has referred to
the statement of Dr. Sunita Galodha and both the above-mentioned
reports in extenso, in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, which
reads as under:
“10. Each case has to be determined on its own
circumstances and law laid down by the Apex Court
with regard to delay has to be applied to the given facts.
Coming to the medical evidence, we find that prosecutrix
was examined by Dr. Sunita Galodha (PW-7) who issued·
MLC (Ex.PW7/B) based on the chemical examiner’s
report (Ex.PW6/A). This witness found that prosecutrix
was having a normal gait. There were no marks of injury
on any part of her body. Clothes which she was wearing
had been washed and changed. However, when it came
for physical examination of her private parts, prosecutrix
did not co-operate. She did not allow even a tip of a little
finger to be inserted inside her vagina. Also no blood
or semen was found on her private parts or the vaginal
swab. Since prosecutrix resisted physical examination,
including that of hymen, this witness could not give any
final opinion about the commission of sexual intercourse.
The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also does
not link the accused to the alleged crime. Semen was
not found on the clothes of the prosecutrix or the vaginal
swab. Eventually the ground that blood & semen was

1 Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170; Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC
811; Fateh Chand v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 543; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal, (2011)
2 SCC 550.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1811

The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu

not found on the pubic hair & vaginal slides of Veeja
Kumari. Blood in track was found on swab, but semen
could not be detected on exhibit. Further, the opinion
regarding occurrence of act, as asked in police docket
cannot be given as the girl has been- referred to RPMC,
Dharamshala.”
10. The afore-extracted portions make it amply clear that the prosecutrix
and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical
staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of
events. It is a well-settled proposition of law that non-allowance
of medical examination by an alleged rape-victim raises negative
inferences against them.2 We cannot ascribe any good reason to the
complete lack of assistance that the complainants tendered to the
authorities, apart from their contradictory stances before the Court.
We are further doubtless in this regard as the High Court, while
discussing the prosecutrix’s testimony, has come to the invariable
conclusion that she was not mentally unsound – given that she was
able to clearly comprehend the question and answer during the
cross-examination.
11. As regard to the age of the prosecutrix, she has categorically admitted
as has been otherwise proved that she was 19 years old at the time
of the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has not opposed this
factum as well.
12. We are cognizant of the jurisdictional limitations that normally restrict
interference in settled criminal appeals,3 especially wherein the
High Court has acquitted the accused. It is equally well-established
that save and 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 are so perverse
that the same cannot be sustained, then only might a judgment of
acquittal warrant interference. On the contrary, in the instant case
the High Court has microscopically examined the entire evidence

2 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.
3 Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731; Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 1 SCC
6; Gosu Jayarami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 766; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Dharmendra Singh, (1999) 8 SCC 325.
1812 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

before firmly opining that the present accused-respondent deserves
the benefit of the doubt.
13. Consequently, we refuse to interfere with the judgment of acquittal
passed by the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain