Varun Kumar Alias Sonu vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

2025 INSC 1232 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2018

VARUN KUMAR ALIAS SONU …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The present appeal has been directed against the final judgment

dated 18.03.2015 and the final order dated 08.04.2015 rendered by the

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal Number

139 of 2008, whereby the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh

against the petitioner was allowed and the judgment dated 05.12.2007

of the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions

Trial Number 11 of 2007 was partly set aside.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2025.10.14

2.1. Girdhari Lal, uncle of the victim girl, lodged a report with the 16:27:17 IST Reason:

police on the basis of which FIR No. 88 dated 28.02.2007 was registered Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 1 of 10 at Police Station, Sadar (Hamirpur) for offences punishable under

Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as “the IPC”). During the course of investigation, Sections

376 and 377 of the IPC were added to the FIR. After investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet against the present

appellant /accused as well as the co-accused, Deepak Rai Verma.

2.2. The appellant/accused was charged for having committed

offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 of the IPC,

while the co-accused was charged for committing offences under

Sections 212 and 368 of the IPC.

2.3. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in order to

establish its case before the concerned trial court. The statements of

the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) were also

recorded.

2.4. The Trial Court, by judgment and order dated 05.12.2007,

acquitted both the accused persons.

2.5. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before

the High Court against the judgment and order of acquittal rendered

by the trial court. The High Court, by way of the impugned judgment,

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 2 of 10 partly allowed the appeal against the appellant/accused and the

appellant/accused was convicted for committing offences punishable

under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 of the IPC. Vide the final order

dated 08.04.2015, the appellant/accused was sentenced to

imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and

in default of payment of fine, further undergo imprisonment for a

period of one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal qua the co-

accused, thereby confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial

court so far as the co-accused is concerned.

2.6. The appellant/accused has therefore preferred the present

appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that

though the prosecution failed to prove the case against the

appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court has

wrongly convicted the appellant/accused for committing the alleged

offences. Learned counsel referred to the deposition of the prosecution

witnesses, including the deposition given by the victim (PW-4) as well

as the deposition given by the Doctor (PW-1), who had examined the

victim. It is contended that the medical evidence does not support the

version given by the victim, despite which the High Court has

convicted the appellant/accused. It is further submitted that there are

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 3 of 10 major discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses, despite which the High Court has believed the

version given by the victim. At this stage, it is contended that the victim

cannot be termed as a sterling witness and therefore, the High Court

ought not to have relied upon the version given by the victim. When

there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular

evidence of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is required to be

given to the accused and in fact the trial court has rightly passed the

order of acquittal in favour of the appellant/accused.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused further submitted that

when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence laid by the

prosecution and if the Trial Court has taken one possible view by

acquitting the accused, it was not open for the High Court to take

another possible view relying upon the evidence laid by the

prosecution. It is contended that the scope of interference in an order

of acquittal is limited, despite which the High Court has interfered with

the order of acquittal rendered by the trial court and therefore, the

impugned judgment passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has not disputed the

age of the victim. In fact, on the basis of the evidence led by the

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 4 of 10 prosecution before the trial court, the trial court determined the age of

the victim as 15 years.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused, therefore, urged that

the present appeal be allowed and thereby, the impugned judgment

passed by the High Court be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent State opposed the present appeal. Learned counsel

submitted that the High Court has reappreciated the entire evidence

led by the prosecution and thereafter, given a finding that the age of

the victim was 15 years at the time of the incident and since, the said

finding is not disputed by the appellant/accused, this Court may

consider the age of the victim as 15 years. Thus, it is contended that the

victim was a minor and that too below 16 years of age at the time of the

incident.

9. Learned counsel for the State thereafter contended that the victim

(PW-4) has fully supported the case of the prosecution and in fact the

victim has narrated the manner in which the incident took place while

giving deposition before the Court. Specific allegations with regard to

committing rape and anal intercourse were levelled by the victim

against the appellant/accused. At this stage, it is pointed out from the

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 5 of 10 deposition given by the Doctor (PW-2), who examined the victim, that

“it is possible that she was subjected to intercourse”. Further, another

Doctor (PW-1) has also opined that the victim “may have undergone

sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time of examination”,

which was done on 02.03.2007. Further, it was stated that there was

nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. It is also

contended that PW-2 has stated that “there was no evidence of anal

intercourse”, however, at the same time the said Doctor has further

stated that “the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out”. Learned

counsel also contended that PW-1 has specifically stated that “on

enquiry, the victim admitted to have had sexual intercourse on

27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only”. It is therefore urged

that the victim, at the very first instance, gave the details of the incident

before the Doctor.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent State therefore contended

that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness and relying solely

upon her statement, even without corroboration, conviction can be

recorded. Furthermore, in the present case, even the medical

evidence does not rule out the sexual intercourse. It is contended that

despite the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution before the trial

court, the trial court acquitted the appellant/accused and therefore, the

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 6 of 10 High Court, after considering the aforesaid relevant aspects/evidence,

rightly set aside the judgment and order rendered by the trial court.

Learned counsel, therefore, urged that no interference is required in

the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, and hence, this

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

having gone through the material placed on record and the evidence

led by the prosecution, it emerges that so far as the age of the victim is

concerned, the same has not been disputed before this Court. As per

the case of the prosecution, the victim was about 15 years old on the

date of the incident. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect, if the

deposition given by the victim (PW-4) is carefully examined, it

transpires that the victim has specifically deposed before the trial court

about the manner in which the incident took place. Specific allegations

with regard to committing rape upon her by the appellant/accused and

committing unnatural sex upon her have been levelled by the victim

against the appellant/accused. The victim has specifically deposed that

when she reached her friend’s house, the appellant/accused took her

to Una in a bus. At that time, the victim had borrowed two pairs of suits

from her friend. At Una, the appellant/accused took her to the house of

his cousin (the co-accused), who was residing with his wife and

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 7 of 10 daughter. The victim has further deposed that she along with the

appellant/accused slept in one room, whereas, others slept in another

room. Further, during the night, the appellant/accused subjected the

victim to forcible sexual intercourse. Next morning, the victim changed

her clothes on the asking of the wife of the co-accused. In the evening,

the victim was told by the co-accused that her family had lodged a

report with the police, and the police were searching for them.

Thereafter, they went to the factory premises of the co-accused and

stayed there. At that place, the appellant/accused subjected the victim

to carnal intercourse. Thus, from the testimony given by the victim, it is

clear that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the

appellant/accused. From the evidence given by the victim, we are of

the view that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid deposition, the testimony of PW-1

is examined. It transpires that the said witness has specifically stated

that “on enquiry, she admitted to have had sexual intercourse on

27.02.2007 at about 12 midnight one time only. According to her, this

was the first sexual act. She had taken bath and changed her clothes

after that act." Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of PW-1, it can be

said that when the victim was brought for medical examination, she

disclosed before the independent witness, i.e., the Doctor (PW-1),

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 8 of 10 about the sexual intercourse. It further transpires from the deposition

of PW-1 that the doctor gave a provisional opinion that the victim may

have undergone sexual intercourse within one week prior to the time

of examination. However, the final opinion was reserved. Thereafter,

while giving the final opinion, it has been stated that there was nothing

to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place.

13. Similarly, PW-2 has deposed before the court that when she

examined the victim, the victim “was conscious, cooperative and well

oriented to time, place and person”. Further, the victim said that “male

partner had anal intercourse with her on 28.02.2007 night. According

to her, it was her first such sexual act and after this, did not have another

one”. PW-2 further stated that “there was no evidence of anal

intercourse, but the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out”.

14. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition given by the Doctors, i.e.

PW-1 and PW-2, who had examined the victim, it can be said that the

medical evidence does not rule out the possibility of rape upon the

victim.

15. Even assuming that the victim had wilfully volunteered to sexual

intercourse, this aspect becomes immaterial, as the victim was a minor

on the date of the incident in question. As observed hereinabove, as

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 9 of 10 per the case of the prosecution, she was aged about 15 years on the

date of the incident.

16. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the High

Court while passing the impugned judgment and we are of the view

that, looking at the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial

court, the view taken by the High Court was the only possible view.

Despite this, the trial court had given the benefit of doubt to the

appellant/accused and thereby acquitted him. Thus, we are of the view

that the High Court has rightly set aside the judgment passed by the

trial court qua the appellant/accused and therefore, no interference is

required in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

17. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, the appeal fails and

accordingly, stands dismissed.

.......……….…………………….J. [MANOJ MISRA]

....….....………………………….J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI] NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 14, 2025.

Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Page 10 of 10