'Minor's consent to sex immaterial': SC upholds conviction in rape case

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for raping a 15-year-old girl, observing that medical evidence in the case did not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. The bench further made it clear that even if the victim had voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse, such consent was legally immaterial as she was a minor at the time of the incident.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by Varun Kumar alias Sonu, who had challenged the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment of March 18, 2015, and its final order dated April 8, 2015. The High Court had overturned his acquittal, convicted him under rape charges, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000. The court, however, upheld the acquittal of a co-accused. The FIR in the case was lodged on February 28, 2007.

Before the apex court, the appellant argued that the victim could not be treated as a “sterling witness,” and that the High Court had erred in relying on her testimony. His counsel contended that when there is a contradiction between medical evidence and the prosecution’s ocular evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The defence did not, however, dispute the age of the victim, which had been conclusively determined by the trial court as 15 years at the time of the incident.

Opposing the plea, the state counsel maintained that the victim had consistently supported the prosecution’s version and had clearly described how the assault took place in her deposition. He pointed out that the victim made specific allegations of rape and anal intercourse against the accused, and that her testimony alone was sufficient to sustain conviction. He further emphasized that the medical evidence corroborated her account and did not exclude the possibility of sexual intercourse.

After examining the records and hearing both sides, the bench agreed with the prosecution’s case. It held that the victim’s testimony was reliable and sufficient to uphold the conviction.

“From the evidence given by the victim, we are of the view that the victim can be termed as a sterling witness,” the court said, adding that medical examination reports did not contradict her account.

The court reiterated that the victim’s consent, even if assumed, had no legal significance since she was a minor. “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,” the bench said.

Concluding that the High Court had rightly overturned the trial court’s acquittal, the bench refused to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The view taken by the High Court was the only possible view. The trial court erred in giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant despite clear evidence, the court observed.

Case Title: Varun Kumar alias Sonu vs The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Judgment Date: October 14, 2025

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Vipul M. Pancholi