REAFFIRMATION OF PRINCIPLES ON MINOR DISCREPANCIES IN TESTIMONY AND STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF VICTIM ANONYMITY IN RAPE CASES.

INTRODUCTION
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand Alias Monu., 2026 INSC 290,
decided on 24 March, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay
Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court undertook a
comprehensive examination of the High Court’s Judgment acquitting the Accused,
rendered upon reversal of the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. It scrutinized the
correctness and propriety of the High Court’s interference with the Trial Court’s
appreciation of evidence, particularly in light of settled principles governing appellate
review in criminal cases.
The Court further assessed the evidentiary reliability and credibility of the testimony of
the child prosecutrix, including the effect of minor contradictions, alleged
inconsistencies, delay in lodging the complaint and purported improbabilities in the
prosecution’s case. Additionally, it evaluated the interplay between medical evidence
and ocular testimony, and considered the extent to which medical findings corroborated
or contradicted the prosecution narrative.
Finally, the Court examined whether due compliance had been ensured with the
statutory mandate of safeguarding the identity of the victim, as stipulated under Section
228A of the Indian Penal Code.

BRIEF FACTS
1) A 9-year-old girl (prosecutrix) was sent in the morning to fetch buttermilk from a
nearby house.
2) She was allegedly taken by the Accused into a cowshed and subjected to sexual
assault.
3) After returning home, she informed her mother and later her father.
4) The family, after some communication and delay, lodged a FIR.
5) The victim underwent medical examination, which found injuries consistent with
sexual assault and presence of human blood on clothes.
6) The Accused was charged under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Punishment of Rape), Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Causing
Disappearance of Evidence of Offence, or giving false information to screen
offender) and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provision.

7) The Trial Court convicted the Accused under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act,
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment with fine, acquitted him under Section 201
IPC and based its decision primarily on the victim’s testimony supported by medical
and other corroborative evidence.
8) The High Court acquitted the Accused on the ground that the prosecution case was
doubtful due to material contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delay in
reporting, an improbable travel timeline, alleged prior enmity between the families
and the view that medical evidence alone was insufficient to sustain conviction.
9) The State challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW
1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction and acquitting
the accused.
2. Whether minor contradictions and improbabilities can override credible
testimony of a child victim.
3. Whether sole testimony of a prosecutrix can sustain conviction in rape cases.
4. Whether medical evidence can be disregarded when it supports ocular
testimony.
5. Whether victim identity was wrongly disclosed contrary to statutory protection.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
Scope of interference in acquittal cases
The Court reiterated that interference with an order of acquittal is limited and should be
exercised only in exceptional circumstances. However, it clarified that where the High
Court’s findings are based on a misreading of evidence or a perverse appreciation of
the record, resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice, interference by the Supreme
Court is justified.

Testimony of the child prosecutrix
The Court observed that the victim, who was about 9–10 years old at the time of the
incident, had clearly identified the accused and consistently narrated the incident of
assault. It is Further repeated that in law the testimony of a prosecutrix does not require
corroboration if it is trustworthy and inspires confidence. It is also held that minor
contradictions or peripheral inconsistencies in her statement cannot dilute or discredit
the core allegations of the prosecution case.

Effect of the contradictions and delay
The Court held that human memory is inherently imperfect and therefore minor
discrepancies in witness statements are natural and expected. It is further clarified that
only those contradictions which go to the root of the Prosecution case and affect its core
are material and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in lodging the
FIR was not fatal to the Prosecution version.

Medical evidence
The Medical Report confirmed injuries consistent with sexual assault, including
presence of human blood and a torn hymen, thereby supporting the Prosecution case.
The Court repeated that medical evidence is only corroborative and not conclusive in
nature, but in the present case it clearly aligned with the victim’s testimony and
accordingly held that the High Court erred in discarding it on the basis of speculative
improbabilities.

Improbability of the timeline (distance issue)
The Court held that even if the time taken for travel appeared doubtful or improbable,
such discrepancy did not undermine the core fact of the sexual assault itself. It is further
emphasized that criminal trials are not required to adhere to mathematical precision in
respect of timelines or minor factual details when the substantive evidence establishes
the offence.

Enmity between families
The Court observed that prior disputes between the families could at best be treated as
double edged evidence and by themselves, were not sufficient to discredit an otherwise
credible testimony of the victim, reiterating that enmity alone cannot be a ground to
reject trustworthy and consistent prosecution evidence.

Victim identity protection
The Court strongly deprecated the disclosure of the victim’s identity in the proceedings
and reiterated the statutory mandate under Section 228A IPC (Intentional Insult or
Interruption to Public Servant Sitting in Judicial Proceeding), along with settled judicial
precedents, which require strict maintenance of anonymity and confidentiality of victims
in sexual offence case.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in overturning a well-reasoned
conviction, as the victim’s testimony was consistent, reliable and duly corroborated by
medical evidence.
It is further observed that minor contradictions and speculative improbabilities were
wrongly given undue importance and consequently set aside the acquittal, restored the
conviction recorded by the Trial Court and directed the accused to surrender and
undergo the remaining sentence.

TRISHMA KASHYAP
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about
various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Can AI replace an advocate's job?
|| Artificial Intelligence in Legal Profession” can be viewed at the link below: