The Supreme Court has overturned a Rajasthan High Court verdict that had acquitted a man convicted of raping a minor girl in 1986, restoring his conviction after nearly four decades.
The High Court had set aside the trial court’s verdict in 2013, citing the child’s inability to speak and her shedding tears while being cross-examined. However, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vikram Nath criticized the High Court’s decision, stating that it failed to independently assess the evidence on record.
“We are surprised with the manner in which this matter was dealt with by the High Court. As the First Appellate Court, the High Court is expected to independently assess the evidence before confirming or disturbing the findings of the Court below,” the bench observed.
A Long-Delayed Justice
The Supreme Court noted that while such cases are often remanded back for reconsideration, the extraordinary delay—spanning nearly 40 years—necessitated an immediate ruling. The Court emphasized that an appeal filed in 1987 was disposed of only in 2013, further delaying justice for the victim.
The case dates back to March 3, 1986, when a six-year-old girl was found unconscious and bleeding by an eyewitness, Gulab Chand. The accused, partially undressed, was seen fleeing the scene. At the time, the victim’s mother had left her in the accused’s care while attending a funeral in a nearby village.
In 1987, the trial court convicted the accused based on medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. However, the Rajasthan High Court later overturned the conviction, citing inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of forensic corroboration, and the absence of testimony from the child victim.
Trauma and Silence Misinterpreted
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s reliance on the child’s silence during cross-examination as grounds for acquittal. It noted that trauma often leaves victims unable to articulate their experiences, especially young children who may not fully comprehend the legal process.
“The tears of the victim must be understood for what they signify. Her silence should not be equated with that of an adult. A child traumatized at such a tender age cannot be burdened with carrying the weight of the prosecution’s case alone,” the Court ruled.
Additionally, the Court took issue with the High Court’s approach to medical and eyewitness evidence, noting that the trial court had based its conviction on a medical report confirming grievous injuries consistent with sexual assault. The High Court’s decision to dismiss the eyewitness testimony over minor discrepancies was also deemed flawed.
Restoring Conviction and Privacy Concerns
The Supreme Court further criticized the High Court for disclosing the victim’s name throughout its judgment, a practice discouraged by multiple judicial precedents to protect victims’ privacy.
“This Court, in judgments dating back at least a decade before the impugned ruling, has repeatedly emphasized the importance of preserving the victim’s anonymity,” the Supreme Court stated.
Ultimately, the Court allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s acquittal and reinstating the accused’s conviction. The accused has been ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.
The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak, along with Advocates Aman Prasad and Milind Kumar. The respondent was represented by Advocates Ranbir Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Anzu K Varkey, and Pratima Yadav.
