Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 21.08.2025 vs Parveen Kumar And Another on 10 September, 2025
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Sushil Kukreja
1 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 277 of 2015 Reserved on: 21.08.2025 .
Decided on: 10.09.2025 _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh .....Appellant Versus Parveen Kumar and another ......Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting?
_____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok K. Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.02.2015, passed by the learned Special Court, Una, District Una, HP, in SCST Case No.2/2013, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS2 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) prosecution story, are that the prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her father and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, visited police station on .
07.06.2013 and got her statement recorded under Section 154 of Cr.PC, stating therein that on 04.06.2013, she alongwith her grand-parents had gone to the house of her aunt (Bua) and from there, she made a telephonic call to Parveen Kumar (respondent No.1/accused herein), who was known to her through her sister, on 05.06.2013 to meet her at Shiv Mandir. Thereafter, she met him near Shiv Mandir at about 2.30 p.m., and she told him not to make phone calls to her as her parents had come to know about the same. In the meanwhile, one person came there, who inquired about their relation and thereafter 2-3 boys also came there and started giving beatings to accused Parveen and then she went to the house of some unknown lady. From the house of said lady, she made a phone call to accused Parveen, who told her that he was at Daulatpur and thereafter she also went to Daulatpur, where accused Parveen met her at the bus stand. He told her to go to her own house, but she refused and went with him to his house and there was no one in the house. Accused Parveen asked her to spend a night with him, but she refused and thereafter he forcibly took her to Gagret, where a boy named Bindu (respondent No.2/ accused Arvind Kumar herein) met them and then they all went to Mubarikpur on a bike being driven by accused Bindu. She wanted to go to her house from Mubarikpur, but accused Parveen took her to a hotel at Amb on the bike alongwith Bindu ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 3 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) and booked a room there. After taking meals, accused Bindu went from there on his bike and during intervening night of 5/6.06.2013, at about .
12/12.30, accused Parveen stripped-off her salwar forcibly and committed rape upon her. He threatened to kill her parents in case she disclosed about the incident to anyone and he also told her that if she had sexual intercourse with him, he would marry her, but after that he refused to marry her as she belonged to scheduled caste. Thereafter, she went to the house of accused Parveen and in the meantime Pradhan of his village also came there. Her father and Pradhan also met her at Gagret, to whom she narrated the entire incident. On the basis of the statement of prosecutrix, FIR in question was registered against the accused persons.
3. The police, during the course of investigation, got the prosecutrix medically examined, prepared the spot map, recorded statements of the witnesses and took into possession the bed-sheet from hotel 'City Heart' and also obtained the copy of relevant entry in the register of the hotel. Police also got recorded the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164, Cr.PC and obtained call details and other relevant documents. Accused Parveen Kumar was arrested, who was got medically examined and after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.
4. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 09.07.2013 framed charges against accused Parveen Kumar under Sections 363, 366, 376 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 4 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') Act and Section .
3(1)(XII) of the Schedules Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) and against accused Arvind Kumar under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and Section 17 of POSCO Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 27 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. They examined one witness in their defence.
6. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 06.02.2015, acquitted both the accused persons of all the offences charged against them, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.
7. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside.
He further contended that the learned Trial Court has discarded the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons as such the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and the accused persons be convicted.
8. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/ ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 5 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) accused persons contended that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record .
and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. They further contended that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not require any interference, thus the instant appeal, which is devoid of any merit, be dismissed.
9. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused persons and carefully examined the entire records.
10. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Further, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It is also a settled principle of ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 6 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required .
to convict the accused.
11. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, PW-11 Secretary, Gram Panchayat, had brought the register of deaths and births of the concerned Gram Panchayat and as per birth certificate Ext.PW11/A, the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been recorded as 08.11.1995.Thus, at the time of the alleged incident, age of the prosecutrix was about 17 years and 7 months.
12. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. In Jugendra Singh Vs. State of UP, (2012) 6 SCC 297, Hon'ble Apex Court has held:-
"49. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. The cry of the collective has to be answered and respected and that is what exactly the High Court has done by converting the decision of acquittal to that of conviction and imposed the sentence as per law."
13. It is a settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim of sexual assault without corroboration from any other evidence unless there are compelling reasons which ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 7 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. The prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not .
accomplice of the crime and there is, no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration on material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness. The deposition of the prosecutrix by itself is sufficient to record conviction for the offence of rape if that testimony inspires confidence and has complete link of truth, however, if the Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial which would lend assurance to her testimony. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix as the condition for judicial reliance is not requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a catena of decisions that the Court should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the statement of the prosecutrix is of sterling quality and inspires confidence, then corroboration from other evidence need not be sought, but where the statement of the prosecutrix is shaky and does not inspire confidence then corroboration should be sought from other evidence collected during investigation.
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS8 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB )
15. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, it was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based .
on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc. if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on.
16. In the case of Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191, it was held that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Paras- 9 to 14 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9.In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658, this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under:-
"16.A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 9 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on .
the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus and Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248, this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under:-
12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.
11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.: AIR 1996 SC 1393, this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 10 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under:
.
"8...The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix.... The courts must, while evaluating evidence remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.... Seeking corroboration of her statement before replying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to injury.... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances...
** ** ** **
21....The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.
12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1963, this Court held that rape is not mere a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 11 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence.
13. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 .
SCC 622, this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshswar v. State of Rajasthan.
14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix"
17. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of pronouncements that in case of rape, evidence of prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, and finding of guilt in case of rape can be based upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, but apart from above, Hon'ble Apex court has also held that if the story put forth by the prosecutrix is improbable and belies logic, placing sole reliance upon her statement would be violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tameezduddin alias Tammu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2009) 15 SCC 566, wherein it has been held as under:-
"9.It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that story is indeed improbable."::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS
12 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB )
18. Keeping in mind the judgments as cited above, the testimony of prosecutrix has to be consistent and natural in line with the .
case of the prosecution and free from infirmities which inspire confidence in the Court. It cannot be presumed that the statement of the prosecutrix would always be true or without any embellishment.
19. In the background of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the view that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of the circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence. While appearing in the witness-box as PW-
1, the prosecutrix deposed that on 04.06.2013 she had gone to the house of her Bua (aunt) and from there, she made a telephone call to accused Parveen on 05.06.2013 to meet him and he told her to come to Shiv Bari Mandir, at 2.30 PM. She told him not to make calls on her mobile as her parents had come to know about the same. Thereafter, she went to Shiv Mandir, where accused Parveen met her and in the meanwhile, two boys came there and asked them about their relationship and after that, they started giving beatings to accused Parveen. Then one uncle, who was standing there, sent her from the spot and she went to a nearby house of some lady from where, she made a telephonic call to accused Parveen, who told her that he had received injuries and asked her to meet him at Daulatpur. Thereafter, she went to Daulatpur and he took her to his village Kaloh and there was none in his house, ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 13 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) therefore, she asked him to leave her at her home. He made a phone call to accused Arvind, who came at Gagret on a bike and told her that .
accused Parveen was not a good boy and thereafter he left the place.
Accused Parveen called some other boy on telephone and the said boy was not known to her. She asked accused Parveen to leave her at Mubarikpur, so that she could go to her house, but accused Parveen forcibly took her on a bike to City Heart Hotel, Amb and reached there at about 10:00 PM. The bike was driven by another boy, whose name she did not know and accused Arvind did not accompany them. She was compelled by accused Parveen to stay in the hotel for the night and they slept together in one room in the said hotel and during night at about 12.30, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. He allured her to marry her and also threatened her to kill her parents in case she disclosed the fact of rape to anyone. In the morning, accused Parveen told her that since she belonged to scheduled caste, he could not marry her. The person, who brought her to the hotel on bike,had gone in the night.
20. At this juncture, we would like to refer the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21,in which it has been clarified that the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and the court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation and under no ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 14 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) circumstance it should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of events.
.
The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
21. From the above quoted ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that before placing reliance upon the statement ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 15 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) of a prosecutrix, the Court should satisfy itself that she has withstood the test of cross-examination and under no circumstances it should give .
room for any doubt about the factum of occurrence, the person involved and the sequence of events. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, let us now analyze the statement of the prosecutrix.The entire cross-
examination of the prosecutrix reveals that she accompanied accused Parveen at her own and did not disclose about the incident to the police or any other person during her stay with accused Parveen. From the version of prosecutrix in the FIR as well as her deposition before the Court, it is clear that she accompanied accused Parveen at her own because it was the prosecutrix herself who firstly called him from the house of her aunt (Bua) at Ambota and when he left Ambota and reached Daulatpur, she voluntarily followed him to Daulatpur in a bus. Thereafter, when she reached Daulatpur, accused Parveen advised her to go back to her house, but she refused, rather she preferred to go to his house.
Hence, there arises no question of kidnapping her by the accused or taking away from the lawful guardianship of her parents as she remained in the house of accused Parveen for quite long time. It has come in the prosecution evidence that she had gone to the house of accused Parveen as she wanted to marry him and she disclosed such facts even to the parents of accused Parveen in the presence of DW1 Naresh Kumar, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kaloh. The inference can also be drawn from the fact that after the alleged sexual assault in the night of ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 16 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) 05.06.2013, instead of going to her house or going to police station on the next day i.e. 06.06.2013, she preferred to go to the house of accused .
Parveen. The evidence on the record further reveals that as she was not interested to return to her house, therefore, her parents were called to the police station and in the meantime DW1 Naresh Kumar as well as the father of accused Parveen took her to the police station. Had she been sexually assaulted by accused Parveen, her first reaction should have been either to inform her parents or to the police, but no such action was taken by her, rather she went to the house of accused Parveen. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that at that time when she reached the house of accused Parveen, his parents were not there and had there been any intention on his part to have sexual assault or commit rape upon her, he would have done so in his house when his parents were not there. Even the prosecutrix herself admitted, in her cross examination, that in her statement before the police, she stated that initially accused Parveen had not committed any bad act with her. She further admitted that she was annoyed with accused Parveen because he and his mother had refused to marry her with Parveen. All these facts create doubt about her version that she was subjected to alleged sexual assault by accused Parveen, during the night of 05.06.2013, in Hotel City Heart.
22. When the statement of the prosecutrix is carefully scrutinized, we find that the same is not of sterling quality and does not inspire ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 17 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) confidence as it contains material inconsistencies and contradictions which affects the core of the prosecution case.
.
23. The medical evidence on record also reveals that no internal or external injury on her body as well as on her private parts was found and there was also no sign of any recent sexual intercourse because neither any blood, nor any secretions etc. were found. Hence, it can be said that the doctor opined about the possibility of sexual assault with the prosecutrix during the night of 05.06.2013 only on the basis of rupture of hymen. However, in the cross examination, the doctor admitted that the rupture of hymen was old and if that be so, it cannot be said that sexual act had taken place with her during the night of 05.06.2013. Therefore, the medical evidence on record is of no help to the prosecution and creates a doubt about the prosecution story. It has also come in the evidence that the police station was about 10 kms away from the village of the prosecutrix and despite that the matter was reported to police after quite delay and there is no explanation why the matter was not reported at the earliest. All these deficiencies cast grave doubt over the veracity of the prosecution case.
24. We are aware that conviction for the offence of sexual assault can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix but the same has to be of sterling quality. Given the fact that testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 18 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) been able to prove its case against accused Parveen beyond all reasonable doubt.
.
25. So far as accused Arvind Kumar is concerned, there is no evidence on the record to link him with the offence in question. A bare perusal of statements of the prosecutrix as well as her parents go to show that none of them have deposed anything against him. There is no evidence on the record to show that he aided accused Parveen in the alleged commission of offence. Moreover, when the offence against accused Parveen is not proved, then accused Arvind also cannot be held liable for the offence in question.
26. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, no interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal, dated 06.02.2015, passed by the learned Special Court, Una, HP, in SCST case No.2/2013, is required. The view taken by the learned Trial Court was the only possible view, as such the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.
27. In view of the provisions of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the respondents are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (each) with one surety (each) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondents on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS 19 ( 2025:HHC:30883-DB ) Supreme Court.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
.
( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge September 10, 2025 (V.Himalvi) ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:29:43 :::CIS