THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. HUKAM CHAND ALIAS MONU
Reversal of Acquittal in Child Sexual Assault Case: Primacy of Credible Ocular Testimony Over Minor Discrepancies and Medical Corroboration.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 290
Decision Date: 24-03-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Constitution of India, Article 136; Principles of Appreciation of Child Witness Testimony; Victim Anonymity and Section 228-A IPC
- Facts: The respondent-accused was charged with the sexual assault of a nine-year-old girl in August 2007. The victim alleged that while returning from fetching buttermilk, she was taken into a cowshed by the neighbour's son and assaulted. Upon returning home, she narrated the incident to her mother and later to her father. Medical examination confirmed injuries consistent with a sexual act. The defense argued that the case was fabricated due to an existing acrimonious relationship between the families regarding the theft of grass and wood.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversed the conviction and entered a finding of acquittal, citing material contradictions in witness testimonies and the physical improbability of the victim traveling sixteen kilometers within a two-hour window. The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court.
- Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a conviction based on minor contradictions and perceived physical improbabilities despite the consistent and credible testimony of a child sexual assault victim.
- Holding: No, the High Court’s interference with the conviction was not justified. The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the testimony of a "prosecutrix", if it inspires confidence, is sufficient for conviction without corroboration. While medical evidence is corroborative, it cannot override credible ocular evidence unless it fundamentally falsifies the prosecution's case. The High Court erred by "picking holes" in a narrative that withstood cross-examination on essential points of identity and the act of assault. The Court emphasized that human memory is imperfect and minor discrepancies in time or distance do not compromise the "backbone" of the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court deprecated the lower courts' failure to protect the victim's identity as mandated by Section 228-A of the IPC.
🔒 For Members Only