The Supreme Court has acquitted a man sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life in a child sexual assault case, holding that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is merely corroborative and cannot replace the substantive evidence of identification before the trial court.
A Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan found serious deficiencies in the prosecution case, including the failure to obtain dock identification, inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the alleged date of the incident, non-production of the suspect’s sketch, and the absence of scientific evidence connecting the appellant with the offence.
The Court also criticised the “sheer negligence” of the Public Prosecutor and the “gross ignorance” displayed by the trial court’s Presiding Officer in failing to ask the child witness to identify the accused despite his presence in court.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Compilation – August 2026
Trial Court Had Imposed Imprisonment for Natural Life
The case arose from an incident allegedly committed in December 2016 against a five-year-old child in Rajasthan’s Ajmer district.
According to the prosecution, the child went missing while attending a family programme. After villagers launched a search, she was found and brought home by two persons. Her parents noticed that she had suffered injuries and was bleeding.
The family initially did not approach the police because of apprehensions about social stigma and public humiliation. An FIR was eventually registered on December 7, 2016, against an unknown person for rape and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The appellant was arrested nearly two months later, on February 5, 2017. During the investigation, the child allegedly identified him in a Test Identification Parade.
In September 2019, the Special POCSO Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(j) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment, meaning imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. He was also convicted under Sections 363 and 323 of the IPC.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his criminal appeal on August 20, 2025, and affirmed both the conviction and sentence. The appellant subsequently approached the Supreme Court.
Two-Day Delay in FIR Properly Explained
At the outset, the Supreme Court declined to draw an adverse inference from the two-day delay in registering the FIR.
The Bench accepted the family’s explanation that it initially hesitated to approach the police because of the fear of public humiliation and social consequences. Considering that the family came from a rural background, the Court found the explanation plausible.
However, the Court distinguished the delay from the contents of the FIR. It noted that the FIR neither named the appellant nor recorded any particular physical feature or description of the unknown assailant that could subsequently have assisted the child in identifying him.
Since the assailant’s identity was admittedly unknown at the time of registration of the FIR, the manner in which the police subsequently identified and arrested the appellant assumed considerable importance.
No Reliable Basis Shown for Arresting Appellant
The Supreme Court found that the circumstances leading to the appellant’s arrest nearly two months after the incident were not free from doubt.
During his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer claimed that the appellant had been arrested based on information received from a source. The Court, however, found no proper foundation or reliable evidentiary material supporting this assertion.
The Investigating Officer also admitted that complaints supported by affidavits had been submitted by the appellant and his family members alleging false implication due to political rivalry with a local MLA. Nevertheless, no inquiry was conducted into those allegations.
The Court clarified that the defence had not made a bare allegation of false implication. Once specific complaints supported by affidavits were received during the investigation, the Investigating Officer was expected to conduct at least a preliminary verification.
The failure to undertake any inquiry deprived the court of material that could either have supported or disproved the defence allegation, the Bench observed.
Sketch Prepared With Child’s Assistance Was Withheld
Another significant deficiency noticed by the Supreme Court was the non-production of a sketch allegedly prepared with the child’s assistance at an early stage of the investigation.
The Investigating Officer admitted that the child and her father were taken to Jaipur and that a sketch was prepared for identifying the unknown assailant. However, the sketch was neither included in the chargesheet nor produced before the trial court.
The Supreme Court said the sketch constituted important corroborative material because it could have enabled the court to determine whether the physical description initially furnished by the child was consistent with the appellant’s appearance.
Its non-production deprived the court of an objective means of testing the reliability of the subsequent identification, the judgment stated.
The Bench consequently concluded that the Investigating Officer possessed no reliable evidence pointing towards the appellant as the perpetrator when he was arrested.
Medical Evidence Did Not Match Alleged Date of Offence
The Supreme Court also identified a serious discrepancy between the prosecution’s timeline and the medical evidence.
The child was medically examined on December 7, 2016. The doctor found a wound extending from the perianal region towards the vagina, from which foul-smelling pus was oozing. Maggots were also noticed in the wound.
Crucially, the doctor opined that the injuries were approximately five to seven days old.
According to the prosecution, however, the incident had occurred only two days before the medical examination, on December 5, 2016.
The Court held that the medical opinion concerning the age of the injuries did not correspond with the prosecution’s timeline. The presence of pus and maggots also indicated that the injuries were significantly older than alleged.
This discrepancy went to the root of the prosecution case and could not be reconciled with the version recorded in the FIR and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the Bench held.
No DNA or Scientific Evidence Connected Appellant With Crime
Although the medical evidence could establish that the child had suffered injuries associated with sexual assault, the Supreme Court said it did not establish the identity of the person responsible.
The prosecution did not produce any DNA profiling, serological report or other forensic evidence connecting the biological material recovered from the child with the appellant.
The Bench clarified that the absence of DNA evidence may not necessarily be fatal in every criminal case. In the present case, however, it assumed importance because of the serious deficiencies surrounding the identification of the appellant.
When considered alongside the doubtful investigation and the inadequate identification exercise, the absence of scientific corroboration created a significant doubt about the prosecution’s version.
Child Said Police Had Disclosed Appellant’s Name
The Supreme Court found the child witness’s testimony particularly significant.
During her examination-in-chief, the child stated that she knew the accused by the name Dhanraj and could identify him if he came before her. During cross-examination, however, she admitted that the police had told her Dhanraj’s name.
She also stated that several persons, including the appellant, had earlier been gathered at the police station and she had been asked to identify them.
Despite the child stating that she could identify the appellant if he was brought before her, the prosecution did not ask her to identify him in court.
The Court noted that the appellant was physically present during the child’s testimony, having been produced from judicial custody. There was consequently no practical impediment to obtaining his identification.
TIP Merely Corroborative, Dock Identification Is Substantive Evidence
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that the substantive evidence concerning identity is the witness’s identification of the accused before the court.
A Test Identification Parade conducted during the investigation is not substantive evidence. Its purpose is to test the witness’s memory and provide corroboration to the identification subsequently made on oath before the court.
Referring to the three-judge Bench judgment in Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Court observed that an identification proceeding during a police investigation can only be used to corroborate or contradict the evidence subsequently given by the witness in court.
In the present case, however, the trial court and the High Court placed significant reliance on the child’s purported identification of the appellant during the TIP, even though there was no dock identification during the trial.
The Supreme Court held that this omission could not be treated as a mere technical lapse because:
- The appellant was not named in the FIR.
- The FIR did not contain a physical description of the assailant.
- The child admitted that the police disclosed the appellant’s name to her.
- The sketch allegedly prepared with the child’s assistance was not produced.
- The prosecution primarily relied upon the TIP to connect the appellant with the offence.
- No DNA or scientific evidence linked the appellant with the crime.
In these circumstances, the prosecution was required to produce substantive evidence showing that the person standing trial was the same person whom the child claimed to have seen during the incident.
The failure to obtain identification during the child’s sworn testimony “completely demolished” the prosecution case, which rested primarily upon her evidence, the Court held.
Trial Courts Cannot Remain Mute Spectators
The Supreme Court emphasised that a criminal trial is not merely an adversarial contest between the prosecution and the accused. The court carries an independent obligation to discover the truth and ensure that any finding of guilt is based on legally admissible and reliable evidence.
A trial judge cannot remain a mute spectator when evidence directly affecting the guilt or innocence of an accused is left incomplete, the Bench said.
The Court referred to Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—corresponding to Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023—which gives judges wide powers to question witnesses and direct the production of relevant material.
It also relied upon Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, which recognised the wide powers of the court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 165 of the Evidence Act.
These provisions require a trial judge to adopt a participatory role and elicit the material necessary for arriving at the truth instead of functioning merely as a recording machine, the Court observed.
Supreme Court Criticises Prosecutor and Presiding Officer
The Bench found that the appellant was present in court when the child’s deposition was recorded on November 2, 2018.
The child expressly stated that she could identify Dhanraj if he came before her. Nevertheless, the Public Prosecutor did not ask her to point out the person whom she alleged to be the assailant. The Presiding Officer also failed to intervene or seek clarification.
The Supreme Court described this as “sheer negligence” on the part of the Public Prosecutor and “gross ignorance” on the part of the Presiding Officer.
Obtaining identification would have been a simple exercise, particularly when the identity of the offender was the central disputed issue. The omission was not caused by any unavoidable circumstance and was entirely within the trial court’s power to address.
The Court held both the Presiding Officer and the Public Prosecutor equally responsible for the fatal lapse.
Retrial After Nine Years Would Serve No Purpose
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had remained in custody continuously since February 5, 2017—more than nine years.
It considered whether the matter should be remanded to the trial court for fresh recording of the child’s testimony but concluded that no useful purpose would be served by ordering a retrial at such a belated stage.
The defect concerning identification could not now be cured through a de novo trial. The material evidence and the depositions of the key witnesses were already available, and the deficiencies went to the root of the matter.
The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the appellant’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction Set Aside; Immediate Release Ordered
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court had committed a grave error in convicting the appellant and affirming his conviction.
The findings that the prosecution case rested upon credible and reliable evidence were described as unsustainable both on facts and in law.
The Court set aside the trial court’s judgment dated September 5, 2019, and the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment dated August 20, 2025. It acquitted the appellant of all charges and directed that he be released from prison immediately, unless required in any other case.
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.
