Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Rape Case After High Court Ignored Medical and FSL Reports

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's conviction, finding it had ignored the final medical report and FSL findings entirely.

The Supreme Court on 11 August 2026 set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order convicting Ram Singh under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and restored the trial court's acquittal of 12 January 2010. A Division Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar found that the High Court had reversed a well-reasoned acquittal without reference to the final medical report or the forensic science laboratory report — two pieces of evidence that directly contradicted the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the material on record created a serious doubt about the prosecution's version.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

The alleged incident occurred on 28 June 2009. The prosecution case was that Ram Singh, who was residing with one Jaidev Sharma, committed rape on the daughter of the informant, a child aged about four and a half years. The victim's mother stated that when the child returned home, she found bloodstains on the child's clothes, which she washed before lodging a First Information Report at 17.45 hours the same day.

A charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The prosecution examined nine witnesses; the appellant's defence was one of complete denial. The trial court, after examining the depositions of PW1 (Jaidev Sharma, the victim's uncle), PW2 (the victim's mother) and PW3 (the victim herself), found their accounts unreliable on account of several discrepancies. The trial court also noted that the medical report showed no injury, which it found further dented the prosecution's case. The appellant was accordingly acquitted on 12 January 2010.

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed. A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the inconsistencies the trial court had relied upon were not material, that the prosecution evidence was sufficient to establish guilt, and convicted Ram Singh on 3 June 2016, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000 and, in default, six months' simple imprisonment. Ram Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What the Medical and Forensic Evidence Showed

The victim was taken for medical examination at 09.05 p.m. on the day of the alleged incident — within twelve hours. Dr. Asha Negi, PW4, recorded in her preliminary examination report, Exhibit PF, that there was no sign of any injury, inflammation, redness, bruising or laceration on the body of the victim, no evidence of seminal stain or blood, and that the hymen was intact. In her deposition, she stated that the final opinion was given on 5 September 2009, concluding that there was no evidence of penetration. She also confirmed in cross-examination that if a girl child were subjected to sexual intercourse by a grown-up man, she would suffer some injury, but no injury was found in this case.

The investigating officer, PW9, seized a chatai (Exhibit P-1) and a baithak (Exhibit P-2) from the house of the appellant, as well as the victim's salwar and shirt (Exhibits P-3 and P-4). All items were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The FSL report dated 29 August 2009 recorded that neither blood nor semen was detected on the victim's clothing, the seized items from the alleged site of occurrence, or on the appellant's underwear and glans swab. Human semen was found on the appellant's vest and underwear, but no blood was found on those garments. Blood was found only in the appellant's blood sample.

Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Sonam Gupta, drew the Court's attention to a study published in the Indian Journal of Modern Research and Reviews (Volume 2, Issue 6, June 2024) indicating that the Benzidine test can detect blood even after ten washings irrespective of detergent use. She also referred to Modi's A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (28th edition), which states that negative results in a screening test are reliable. The Court accepted the significance of this: since the informant had washed the victim's clothes before the FIR was lodged — only one wash — the negative Benzidine result carried weight.

Contradiction in the Prosecution's Account of the Scene

A further discrepancy arose regarding the place of occurrence. The victim stated she was raped on the cot on which Jaidev Sharma used to sleep. The investigating officer, however, stated that during investigation he found the alleged act was committed in the kitchen of the house — and then confirmed that there was no cot or bed in the kitchen. The Court found this inconsistency raised an additional doubt about the prosecution's case.

Why the High Court's Reversal Was Unsustainable

The Court's central finding was that the High Court had proceeded to accept the oral evidence of the prosecution without referring either to the final medical report or the FSL report. The Court held that the entire prosecution evidence had to be considered together before reaching any conclusion.

When PW2 and PW3's testimony about bloodstains and pain was read alongside the medical examination (conducted within twelve hours, which found no injury whatsoever) and the FSL report (which detected no blood on the clothes), the Court found that a grave doubt was created about the prosecution's version. The preliminary medical finding was confirmed by the final medical report. The FSL result ruled out blood and semen on the victim's clothing.

As for the semen traces on the appellant's undergarment, the Court held that, by itself, that finding was “not found relevant in these circumstances.”

The Court observed that the trial court had rightly noted these discrepancies and rightly acquitted the appellant. The High Court had failed to engage with the medical and forensic reports when overturning the acquittal. The prosecution's evidence fell short of proof beyond reasonable doubt; on the contrary, it created a serious doubt about the prosecution's case.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2016. The High Court's judgment dated 3 June 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2010 was set aside. Ram Singh was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court noted that the appellant was already on bail, and directed that his bail bonds stand cancelled.