The Supreme Court has set aside a conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code after finding that the prosecution evidence, when considered alongside the medical examination and forensic science report, was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the criminal appeal and restored the trial court’s order acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the High Court, while reversing the acquittal, had failed to properly consider material medical and forensic evidence that created serious doubt about the prosecution version. 

The appellant had been tried for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that on June 28, 2009, the appellant had sexually assaulted the informant’s young daughter.

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

The trial court, after considering the evidence, acquitted the appellant on January 12, 2010, holding that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The State challenged the acquittal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The High Court reversed the acquittal on June 3, 2016 and convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC. It sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with a further six months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 

The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

According to the prosecution, the appellant was residing with Jaidev Sharma, who was known to the victim’s family. The prosecution alleged that the child went to Jaidev Sharma’s house on the morning of June 28, 2009 and returned approximately half an hour later.

The victim’s mother stated that when she attempted to bathe and change the child, the child started crying and allegedly disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted by the appellant. The mother also claimed that bloodstains were present on the child’s clothes.

The FIR was lodged at about 5:45 p.m. on the same day. The prosecution subsequently examined nine witnesses during the trial. 

The trial court closely examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s uncle, the victim’s mother and the victim herself.

It found that their depositions contained discrepancies which affected their credibility. The trial court also considered the medical evidence and noted that the victim had not suffered any injury.

After assessing the evidence as a whole, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge and consequently acquitted the appellant. 

The High Court, however, considered the inconsistencies to be insufficient to discredit the prosecution case and concluded that the evidence was adequate to establish guilt. It therefore reversed the acquittal. 

A significant aspect of the Supreme Court’s analysis was the medical examination of the victim.

The child was medically examined on the same day at approximately 9:05 p.m. The medical examination did not disclose any injury, inflammation, redness, bruising or laceration. The medical examination also did not reveal any seminal or bloodstains, and the hymen was found intact.

The final medical opinion was subsequently given on September 5, 2009. According to the medical officer, there was no evidence suggesting penetration. The doctor also stated in evidence that, in the circumstances referred to during examination, an injury would have been expected, but no such injury was found. 

The Supreme Court considered the fact that the medical examination had taken place within approximately twelve hours of the alleged incident particularly relevant to the assessment of the prosecution case.

The Court also examined the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory.

Various articles, including the victim’s clothes and items allegedly connected with the place of occurrence, were sent for forensic examination. The laboratory conducted biological and serological analyses, including a Benzidine test for blood and tests for detecting semen.

The FSL report stated that blood and semen were not detected on the victim’s clothes. Blood was also not detected on the appellant’s relevant garments, although human semen was detected on certain other garments belonging to him. 

The Supreme Court found that this forensic evidence could not simply be disregarded when assessing the credibility of the prosecution version.

The Supreme Court also dealt with the argument concerning the reliability of the Benzidine test.

The appellant had relied upon material discussing the ability of the test to detect blood even after washing. The judgment noted material from the Indian Journal of Modern Research and Reviews and Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology concerning the detection of blood and the significance of negative results in screening tests. 

The Court ultimately treated the absence of blood on the victim’s clothes as a relevant circumstance, particularly because the prosecution version itself placed considerable emphasis on alleged bloodstains.

The Supreme Court found a significant inconsistency between the oral evidence and the objective evidence.

The prosecution witnesses had maintained that bloodstains were present on the victim’s clothes. However, the forensic examination did not detect blood on those clothes.

Similarly, the medical examination conducted within twelve hours of the alleged incident did not reveal injury on the victim’s body. The final medical report also did not provide evidence supporting penetration.

The Court held that when the oral testimony was considered together with the medical and FSL reports, a grave doubt arose concerning the prosecution witnesses’ version regarding injury and bloodstains. 

The Supreme Court also found discrepancies concerning the alleged place where the incident occurred.

According to the victim’s version, the alleged incident had taken place on a cot on which Jaidev Sharma used to sleep. However, the investigating officer stated that the alleged act had taken place in the kitchen.

The investigating officer also admitted that there was no cot or bed in the kitchen. The Court considered this inconsistency significant because it created further doubt regarding the alleged place of occurrence. 

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not adequately considered the entire evidentiary record while overturning the acquittal.

In particular, the High Court had accepted the prosecution evidence without properly considering the final medical report and FSL report.

The Supreme Court stressed that the evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be examined in isolation. The medical and forensic evidence also had to be taken into account before reaching a conclusion regarding guilt. 

The Supreme Court observed that once the depositions of the prosecution witnesses were considered together with the medical and forensic evidence, a serious doubt arose regarding the prosecution version.

The Court noted that the medical examination conducted within twelve hours did not disclose any injury, while the FSL report ruled out the presence of blood and semen on the victim’s clothes. The Court further observed that the detection of semen on the appellant’s undergarment, by itself, was not sufficient in the circumstances of the case. 

The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court had rightly acquitted the appellant. According to the Court, the High Court failed to take into account material medical and forensic evidence while reversing the acquittal.

The Supreme Court consequently set aside the High Court judgment dated June 3, 2016 and restored the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC, his bail bonds were cancelled, and the criminal appeal was allowed. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Employee Can’t Be Terminated for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case He Was Unaware Of: Supreme Court