Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on March 18, 2025, held that silence of a child witness cannot accrue to the benefit of the accused in a case of sexual assault, if other evidence, medical and circumstantial, is available pointing to his guilt.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol set aside the Rajasthan High Court's 2013 judgment which reversed the conviction and the sentence of seven years in jail awarded to respondent Chatra for committing rape upon a minor girl on March 3, 1986. 

"It is a matter of great sadness that this minor girl and her family have to go through nearly four decades of life, waiting to close this horrific chapter of her/their lives," the court said.

The bench observed that on March 3, 1986 happened an incident, that forever altered the trajectory of the minor girl’s life, who was referred to as ‘V’ . She was discovered unconscious and bleeding from her private parts, by one Gulab Chand, after the accused had allegedly subjected her to sexual assault. Gulab Chand filed a report with the concerned police station on March 4, 1986.

Sessions Judge, Tonk by the judgment of November 19, 1987 held the accused guilty and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment, relying upon the testimony of Gulab Chand and the doctor, who conducted medical examination of the victim.

However, the high court erroneously appreciated the evidence and reversed the judgment, the bench noted. The state appealed before the Supreme Court.

The apex court independently examined the evidence of the witness, by placing reliance on whom the trial court recorded the conviction of accused. 

The bench noted that the child witness (victim), had not deposed anything about the commission of the offence against her. When asked about the incident, the trial judge recorded that ‘V’ was silent, and upon being further asked, only shed silent tears and nothing more. Nothing could be elicited from the testimony regarding the commission of the offence, the trial judge had noted.

"This, in our view, cannot be used as a factor in favour of the respondent. The tears of ‘V’, have to be understood for what they are worth. This silence cannot accrue to the benefit of the respondent. The silence here is that of a child. It cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix, which again would have to be weighed in its own circumstances," the apex court said. 

It pointed out that in Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi Vs State of Gujarat (2019), it was held that a nine-year-old prosecutrix turning hostile would not be a fatal blow to the prosecution case when other evidence can establish the guilt of the accused.

In these facts, ‘V’ has not turned hostile, the bench opined.

"Trauma has engulfed her in silence. It would be unfair to burden her young shoulders with the weight of the entire prosecution. A child traumatized at a tender age by this ghastly imposition upon her has to be relieved of being the basis on which her offender can be put behind bars. In almost all other cases, the testimony of the prosecutrix is present and forms an essential part of the conviction of an accused, but at the same time, there is no hard and fast rule that in the absence of such a statement a conviction cannot stand, particularly when other evidence, medical and circumstantial, is available pointing to such a conclusion," the bench said.

The court pointed out the absence of evidence of the prosecutrix is, not in all cases, a negative to be accounted for in the prosecution case. 

The high court disbelieved the statement of Gulab Chand, stating that there was a material contradiction between his statement which formed part of the FIR, and his deposition before the court. 

The FIR stated that when he reached the spot of the offence, the garment worn by the accused (Dhoti) was in loose, open condition and he ran out upon seeing the deponent. Whereas, in the deposition made before the court, the statement was to the effect that when he saw the accused, he was bent down and ‘seated’ upon the victim, which he had allegedly mentioned to the authorities, and they neglected to mention the same in the report.

The apex court, however, opined this contradiction in the FIR versus the statement made in court was not material, in as much as, to discredit his statement, thereby landing a fatal blow to the prosecution case.  

After examining the evidence of the doctor, the bench said, the version suggested by the defence that the injury caused to the private part of ‘V’ had been caused by a nail or an all-pin was a further attempt to discredit the evidence of the doctor by suggesting that he had, in fact, given his findings, influenced by a bribe.

Even on being queried by the court, the witness answered that the cause of injury to ‘V’ could be through sexual intercourse, or an accident. That, coupled with the finding of injury on the genital organ of the accused being possible only due to forceful intercourse with a minor female, leads to a circumstance pointing to the respondent-accused having committed the offense against ‘V’, the bench said.

The possibility of animosity between the accused and the father of ‘V’ has not been established to the point that it would represent a crack in the wall of the prosecution case, giving rise to reasonable doubt, the bench added.       

Coming to the high court's decision, the bench said, "By way of a judgment running into all of six pages, the findings of guilt returned by the Trial Court were upturned and the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges against him. Suffice it to say that 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 it before confirming or disturbing the findings of the court below. This is the settled position of law". 

The court also noted with some surprise that the high court had referred to the victim by name throughout.

This court in judgments, going at least a decade further back from the date of the impugned judgment, has highlighted the importance of abiding by such a restriction, preserving the privacy of the unfortunate victim, even though the restriction does not expressly apply to the high court or this court, the bench said.   

It thus redacted the name of the child victim. 

"The record as it is before us, does not conceal the name of the prosecutrix, however, considering the fact that the directions in Nipun Saxena Vs Union of India (2019) were issued in the pendency of this appeal, her name stands redacted even in the portion quoted from the record," the bench said.   

The court further observed that while remanding the matter to the high court might have been permissible under normal circumstances, the case’s 40-year history made such an approach unjust. Noting that the 1987 appeal was only decided in 2013 after 26 years, the court emphasized the need for a final resolution.    

Court also pointed out that recently, a coordinate bench of the court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Balveer Singh (2025), considered a large number of prior decisions of the court to lay down guidelines for the appreciation of the evidence of a child witness.   

The instant case rested also on circumstantial evidence. 

Court pointed out that the law on that count is crystal clear. When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it rules out all other possible hypotheses other than the guilt of the accused. The most well-recognized judgment is Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984), it said.

Also important to consider is the degree of certainty required, in a given set of facts and circumstances, before a person can be either convicted or acquitted of a crime, the bench said.

Court finally allowed the appeal by the state government and directed the respondent accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence as awarded by the trial court.

Case Title: State of Rajasthan Vs Chatra