The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, emphasizing that the testimony of a minor victim can be relied upon as a “sterling witness.” It held that even if medical evidence is not conclusive, it does not rule out the offence, and consent is immaterial when the victim is below 16 years of age.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from an FIR registered in February 2007 against the appellant, Varun Kumar, for offences including kidnapping and rape under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years. The victim’s testimony detailed that she was taken to Una and subsequently to a relative’s house, where the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual and unnatural intercourse on multiple occasions. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The Trial Court, however, acquitted both accused, giving them the benefit of doubt, primarily citing perceived inconsistencies between the victim’s ocular testimony and the medical evidence. The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court. The High Court reappreciated the evidence, including the consistent testimonies of the victim and the examining doctors. It concluded that the victim was a credible “sterling witness” and that the medical opinions did not exclude the possibility of sexual assault. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellant’s acquittal, convicted him under relevant IPC sections, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The appellant then challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The case commenced with the registration of FIR No. 88 of 2007 at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, with Sections 376 and 377 IPC added during investigation. After the chargesheet was filed, the Sessions Court, Hamirpur, conducted a trial (Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2007) and acquitted all accused on 05.12.2007. The State of Himachal Pradesh then filed Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2008 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High Court, vide judgment dated 18.03.2015 and order dated 08.04.2015, partly allowed the State’s appeal. It set aside the appellant’s acquittal, convicted him under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The co-accused’s acquittal was upheld. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 before the Supreme Court of India, which ultimately dismissed the appeal and confirmed the High Court’s conviction and sentence.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Forms Supervisory Committee to Monitor CBI Investigation in Stampede Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made pivotal observations on the evidentiary value of the victim’s testimony. It held the minor victim qualified as a “sterling witness,” whose consistent and credible account could form the sole basis for conviction, even without corroboration. The Court noted that while the medical evidence was not conclusively supportive, it did not rule out the commission of sexual intercourse or unnatural sex, thereby not negating the victim’s ocular testimony. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the issue of the victim’s consent was wholly immaterial as she was a minor, specifically below 16 years of age at the time of the incident. It further observed that the High Court’s view, arrived at after a thorough re-appreciation of evidence, was the only possible and correct view in law, and the Trial Court had erroneously extended the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Varun Kumar. It upheld the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in its entirety. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage), 376 (rape), and 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code stands confirmed. The sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000, with a default stipulation of one additional year of imprisonment, was also maintained. The Court affirmed that no interference was warranted with the High Court’s well-reasoned decision, which had correctly reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal.
Case Details:
Case Title: Varun Kumar @ Sonu vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1232 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018 Date of Judgement: October 14, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Download The Judgement Here