RAM SINGH VS. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2026 INSC 830Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 1 of 13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1052 OF 2016

RAM SINGH APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J

1. The appellant faced trial for having committed an offence

punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601.

The trial Court by its judgment dated 12.01.2010 acquitted him of

the said offence after finding the prosecution evidence insufficient

to convict him. The Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High

Court2, however, overturned his acquittal and by judgment dated

03.06.2016 convicted him. The appellant was sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine

of ₹50,000/-. In default, he was to further undergo simple

1 For short, ‘the Penal Code’

2 For short, ‘the High Court’

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 2 of 13

imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence, this appeal.

2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was residing with

one Jaidev Sharma since both were serving together. On

28.06.2009, it was alleged that the appellant committed rape on

the daughter of the informant, who was aged about four and a half

years. When the victim returned home, her mother found that

there were bloodstains on her clothes. The informant washed the

victim’s clothes and gave her a bath. The informant, thereafter,

called her husband as well as her father after which the First

Information Report3 came to be lodged at 17.45 hours on the same

day. An offence was registered and investigation was undertaken.

On its completion, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant

and he was charged of having committed an offence punishable

under Section 376 of the Code. The appellant denied the charge

and was, accordingly, tried. The prosecution examined nine

witnesses while the defence of the appellant was of complete

denial.

3. The trial Court after examining the depositions of PW1-

Jaidev Sharma, who was the uncle of the victim, PW2-the mother

3 For short, ‘FIR’

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 3 of 13

of the victim and PW3-the victim herself, found that their

depositions did not inspire confidence considering various

discrepancies therein. The trial Court further found that as per the

medical report, the victim did not suffer any injury and this,

according to the learned Judge of the trial Court caused a dent in

the case of the prosecution. After considering the entire evidence

on record, the trial Court acquitted the appellant.

4. On an appeal being preferred by the State of Himachal

Pradesh, the High Court was of the view that the inconsistencies

that weighed with the trial Court were not very material. On the

contrary, the evidence led by the prosecution was sufficient to

bring home the guilt of the appellant. On that basis, the acquittal

of the appellant was reversed and he was convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 376 of the Code.

5. Ms. Sonam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submitted that the High Court was not justified in

reversing the acquittal of the appellant without taking into

consideration the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court.

Referring to the prosecution evidence in detail, it was submitted

that the contradictions therein could not be brushed aside as being

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 4 of 13

minor in nature. Referring to the FIR and the subsequent version

of PW1 to PW3, it was submitted that said witnesses had tried to

improve upon the case after the medical report indicated absence

of any injuries on the victim. She also referred to the report of the

State Forensic Science Laboratory4 to indicate that even after

applying the Benzidine test, no blood or semen was detected either

on the clothes of the victim or from the chatai-Exhibit P-1 and

baithak-Exhibit P-2 that were seized from the alleged site of

occurrence. To substantiate this contention, the learned counsel

relied upon extracts from the Indian Journal of Modern Research

and Reviews to highlight the credibility of the Benzidine test. It

was, thus, submitted that overlooking the nature of jurisdiction to

be exercised while considering an appeal against acquittal, the

High Court proceeded to convict the appellant despite the weak

nature of evidence. It was prayed that the judgment of the High

Court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the

accusation.

6. Per contra, Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, learned Additional

Advocate General supported the conviction of the appellant.

4 For short, ‘FSL’

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 5 of 13

According to him, the High Court rightly found that the trial Court

had failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper

perspective. The victim having deposed and narrated the alleged

incident, there was no reason to disbelieve her statement. The

medical evidence on record would not override the ocular evidence

brought on record by the prosecution. The High Court was justified

in coming to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Court

was perverse and, hence, it rightly interfered with the judgment of

acquittal. He, thus, submitted that there was no merit in the

appeal and it ought to be dismissed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length

and with their assistance, we have also gone through the records

of the case. We have, thereafter, given thoughtful consideration to

the submissions as urged.

8. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the material

evidence brought on record by the prosecution to bring home the

guilt of the appellant. Perusal of the FIR dated 28.06.2009 lodged

by the mother of the victim indicates that her brother-in-law Jaidev

Sharma was residing near her house. The appellant was also

residing with Jaidev Sharma. The informant’s daughter aged about

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 6 of 13

five years insisted on going to the house of Jaidev Sharma despite

being told not to go. Her daughter, however, went there at about

08.30 a.m. and returned back after half an hour. When the

informant took her for having a bath and started removing her

clothes, she started weeping. On being asked, she stated that she

was sexually assaulted by the appellant. The informant stated that

there were bloodstains on the pajama of her daughter and, hence,

she washed the same. She, thereafter, informed her husband as

well as her father. She further stated that later on the appellant

had called her on her mobile phone and was seeking forgiveness.

It is thereafter that the said report was lodged at about 17.45 hours

on that day.

9. The victim was then taken for medical examination at 09.05

p.m. on the same day. She was examined by Dr. Asha Negi, PW4.

On local examination as per Exhibit PF, she noted that there was

no sign of any injury, inflammation, redness, bruising or laceration

on the body of the victim. There was no evidence of any seminal

stain or blood and that her hymen was intact. It was stated that

the final report would be given after obtaining an expert opinion of

a gynaecologist. In her deposition, she stated that the final opinion

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 7 of 13

was given on 05.09.2009 concluding that there was no evidence to

suggest that penetration had taken place. She further stated that

redness, in case of penetration in the case of a child of a tender

age, would persist for twenty-four hours after a sexual assault. In

her cross-examination, she stated that if a girl child was subjected

to sexual intercourse by a grown-up man, she would suffer some

injury on her body. However, in the present case, she stated that

there was no injury found.

10. The Investigating Officer5, PW9 after inspection of the spot

had recovered a chatai-Exhibit P-1 and baithak-Exhibit P-2 from

the house of the appellant. He further stated that the mother of

the victim produced her clothes being Exhibits P-3 and P-4, which

were her salwar and shirt. All these items were sealed and

thereafter sent for forensic examination. The report of the FSL

dated 29.08.2009 is at Exhibit PW9/B. The result of the said test

is as under:

“RESULT

The exhibits/cuttings were subjected to biological and serological

analyses in the laboratory. ‘Benzidine test’ was performed to detect

the presence of blood. The species of origin was determined by the

gel-diffusion technique. Acid phosphatase test and microscopic

examination were carried out for the detection of semen. On the basis

of aforesaid examination, result was as under:

(1) Blood and semen was not detected on exhibit-1a (chatai/mat),

5 For short, ‘the IO’

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 8 of 13

exhibit-1b (bethaku), exhibit-2a (salwar, xxxxxx), exhibit-2b (shirt,

xxxxxx), exhibit-3 (underwear, Ram Singh), exhibit-4 (glans swab,

Ram Singh), exhibit-5 (public hair, Ram Singh), exhibit-10a (vaginal

slide, xxxxxx), exhibit-10b (vaginal swab, xxxxxx) and exhibit-11

(pajami, xxxxxx).

(2) Blood was not detected on exhibit-7a (underwear, Ram Singh)

and exhibit-7b (vest, Ram Singh). Human semen was found on these

exhibits.

(3) Human blood was found in exhibit-6 (blood sample, Ram

Singh).”

11. When the aforesaid material relied upon by the prosecution

is taken into consideration, it becomes clear that as per the FIR,

the mother of the victim has referred to blood being found on the

clothes of the victim immediately after she returned from the house

of the appellant and has also referred to the act of sexual

intercourse. The victim was asked various questions when she

appeared as PW3. She too is firm with the stand that there were

bloodstains on her clothes. Her clothes at Exhibits P-3 and P-4

were subjected to a ‘Benzidine test’ at the FSL to detect the

presence of blood thereon. Similarly, Acid Phosphate test and

Microscopic Examination were also carried out for the detection of

semen. The final report of the FSL, however, indicates that there

was no blood detected on the clothes of the victim or the

undergarment of the appellant.

12. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the submission

made on behalf of the appellant as regards conduct of ‘Benzidine

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 9 of 13

test’ for detecting the presence of blood. As per the Indian Journal

of Modern Research and Reviews, Volume 2 Issue 6, June 2024 it

has been opined in the studies conducted that blood presence

could be detected by the ‘Benzidine test’ till the tenth washing,

irrespective of detergent use. It is only after multiple washings that

the efficacy of Benzidine in detecting bloodstains could be

questioned. In ‘A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology’ by Modi, 28th Edition it has been stated that negative

results in a screening test are reliable and negative areas on any

article need not be examined further to avoid wastage of time.

13. When the version of the informant, PW2 and the victim, PW3,

who state about presence of bloodstains on the clothes of the

victim is considered along with the preliminary medical

examination of the victim conducted within twelve hours of the

incident and the final report of the Medical Officer6, the presence

of any injury on or near the private parts of the victim is not found.

The MO was clear in her statement that she could not find injury,

whatsoever, on the body of the victim when she was examined

within twelve hours of the alleged incident. Absence of any blood

6 For short, ‘MO’

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 10 of 13

on the clothes of the victim as well as on the undergarment of the

appellant after the garments were subjected to the ‘Benzidine test’

as per the FSL report is a relevant factor, which cannot be ignored.

Thus, when the oral statements of PW2 and PW3 are considered

along with the Final Medical Report and the report of the FSL, a

grave doubt is created about the version of PW2 and PW3 as

regards injury on the body of the victim and bloodstains on the

clothes of the victim. The prosecution evidence neither indicates

any injury to the private parts of the victim nor trace of any blood

on her clothes.

14. According to the prosecution, a chatai-Exhibit P-1 and

Baithak-Exhibit P-2 were recovered from the house of the

appellant. According to the IO, the same were seized since the

appellant had committed sexual intercourse on the same. These

items were also subjected to examination at the FSL. The report,

however, states that neither blood nor semen was detected on

these two items. It is further noted that as per the victim, she was

raped by the appellant on the cot on which Jaidev Sharma used to

sleep. According to the IO, during the course of investigation he

noted that the alleged sexual act was committed by the appellant

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 11 of 13

in the kitchen of the house. However, he further stated that there

was no cot or bed in the kitchen. He reiterated that even the victim

told him that the alleged incident took place in the kitchen.

Absence of any cot or bed in the kitchen as admitted by the IO,

again raises a doubt as regards the place of occurrence, especially

as the victim states that the alleged incident took place on the cot

on which Jaidev Sharma used to sleep.

15. Considering the aforesaid evidence that was brought on

record, the trial Court found that in view of various material

discrepancies, the depositions of PW1 to PW3 did not inspire

confidence. Various other contradictions were also noted on the

basis of which the learned Judge of the trial Court held that the

prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant.

He was, therefore, acquitted. The High Court, however, was of the

view that the contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence

was not very material. It proceeded to accept the evidence led by

the prosecution but without referring either to the Final Medical

Report or the report of the FSL. In our view, the entire prosecution

evidence would have to be taken into consideration before arriving

at any conclusion. When the deposition of prosecution witnesses

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 12 of 13

is considered along with the Final Medical Report as well as the

report of the FSL, a serious doubt is created as to the version of

PW2 and PW3. Since inception, it was the stand of PW2 and PW3

that there were bloodstains on the clothes of the victim and the

victim stated that she had experienced pain as a result of the

alleged sexual act of the appellant. The medical examination

conducted within twelve hours of the alleged occurrence, however,

belies the presence of any injury whatsoever on her body. The

opinion of the MO at the preliminary examination stands

confirmed by the Final Medical Report. In addition, the report of

the FSL rules out the presence of blood and semen on the clothes

of the victim. Traces of semen on the undergarment of the

appellant, by itself, is not found relevant in these circumstances.

16. We, therefore, find that the learned Judge of the trial Court

had rightly acquitted the appellant of the said accusation. The

High Court, in our view, failed to refer to the medical reports as

well as the report of the FSL while overturning the acquittal of the

appellant. We do not find the material on record sufficient to hold

that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The material in that regard falls short and it, in fact, creates a

Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2016 Page 13 of 13

serious doubt about the version of the prosecution. We are,

therefore, inclined to restore the judgment of the trial Court after

setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

17. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the

High Court dated 03.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.351 of

2010 is set aside. The appellant is, thus, acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code. Presently, the

appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

18. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.

..………………………..J.

[ UJJAL BHUYAN ]

.…..………………………..J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,

AUGUST 11, 2026.