Shreya Gupta
The Supreme Court, on 18th March 2025, ruled that the silence of a child witness in a case of sexual assault cannot be used to benefit the accused if other medical and circumstantial evidence establishes his guilt. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s 2013 judgment, which had overturned the conviction and seven-year sentence of the accused, Chatra, for the rape of a minor girl on March 3, 1986. The Court expressed deep regret that the victim and her family had to wait for nearly four decades to find closure in the case.
The case revolved around an incident on 3rd March 1986, when the minor girl, referred to as ‘V,’ was found unconscious and bleeding by a witness, Gulab Chand, who then reported the crime to the police the next day. The Sessions Judge in Tonk, on November 19, 1987, convicted the accused based on the testimony of Gulab Chand and the medical examiner. However, the Rajasthan High Court later reversed the conviction, which led the State to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Upon re-examining the evidence, the Supreme Court observed that the child witness had not made any statement regarding the crime. When asked about the incident during the trial, she remained silent and only shed tears. The trial judge recorded that nothing could be inferred from her silence, but the Supreme Court held that this silence could not be interpreted as a factor in favor of the accused. It distinguished between the silence of a child and that of an adult victim, stating that the trauma experienced by the child had rendered her speechless. The bench referred to the precedent set in Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2019), which established that a child turning hostile would not be fatal to a prosecution case if other evidence supported the conviction. Since ‘V’ had not turned hostile but was simply overwhelmed by trauma, the Court ruled that it would be unjust to expect her to solely bear the burden of convicting her offender.
The Supreme Court criticized the Rajasthan High Court’s dismissal of key evidence, including the statement of witness Gulab Chand. The High Court had disbelieved his testimony due to an alleged contradiction between his FIR statement and his court deposition. In the FIR, he mentioned that he saw the accused with his garment in a loose, open condition as he fled the scene. In court, he stated that he had seen the accused seated upon the victim. The Supreme Court held that this discrepancy was not material enough to discredit his testimony or undermine the prosecution’s case.
Medical evidence further supported the prosecution’s claim. The doctor who examined ‘V’ ruled out the Defense’s argument that her injuries could have been caused by a nail or pin, and instead confirmed that the injuries were consistent with sexual assault. The accused’s genital injuries also indicated forceful intercourse with a minor female. The Supreme Court dismissed the Defense’s suggestion that the doctor’s findings were influenced by bribery.
Additionally, the Court found no substantial proof of animosity between the accused and the victim’s father that could cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s handling of the appeal, remarking that its judgment consisted of only six pages and had failed to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence. The Court also noted with disapproval that the High Court had referred to the victim by name throughout its judgment, violating established judicial principles of maintaining the privacy of sexual assault victims. It emphasized the importance of preserving the anonymity of victims, as directed in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019), and redacted the victim’s name accordingly.
Although remanding the case back to the High Court was a possible legal option, the Supreme Court considered the extraordinary delay in the case, which had spanned nearly 40 years, and ruled out this approach in the interest of justice. It highlighted that the appeal had already taken 26 years to be decided by the High Court, making further delays unjustifiable.
The Court also referred to the recent State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025) case, where it had established guidelines for evaluating the testimony of child witnesses. Furthermore, it reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be so complete that it leaves no room for alternative explanations, citing the landmark judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984). It stressed the need for a high degree of certainty in convicting or acquitting an accused based on the facts of the case.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and reinstated the trial court’s conviction of the accused. It directed him to surrender within four weeks to serve his sentence, ensuring that justice was finally delivered to the victim after nearly four decades.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Chatra
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.586 Of 2017
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com