Child Victim's Silence & Tears During Examination Alone Can't Benefit Rape Accused : Supreme Court Restores Conviction After 38 Years

The Supreme Court recently criticised a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court for setting aside the conviction of a person for rape of a minor girl only on the ground that the child victim, during the cross-examination, remained silent and only shed tears.

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the manner in which the High Court, through a 6-page order, set aside the well-considered judgment of the trial court merely on the ground of silence of the child victim during examination.

The High Court had overturned the conviction of the Respondent-accused, noting that the prosecutrix(victim girl) remained silent during the examination and therefore, the in absence of direct testimony from the prosecutrix about the incident, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol overturned the High Court's judgment.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that the absence of the direct testimony of the child witness (prosecutrix) would not be fatal to the prosecution's case when other evidence, medical and circumstantial, is available pointing to the guilt of the accused.

“The child witness (victim), it is true, has not deposed anything about the commission of the offence against her. When asked about the incident, the trial Judge records that 'V' was silent, and upon being further asked, only shed silent tears and nothing more. Nothing could be elicited from the testimony regarding the commission of the offence. This, in our view, cannot be used as a factor in favour of the respondent. The tears of 'V', have to be understood for what they are worth. This silence cannot accrue to the benefit of the respondent. The silence here is that of a child. It cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix, which again would have to be weighed in its own circumstances.”, the court observed.

“In almost all other cases, the testimony of the prosecutrix is present and forms an essential part of the conviction of an accused, but at the same time, there is no hard and fast rule that in the absence of such a statement a conviction cannot stand, particularly when other evidence, medical and circumstantial, is available pointing to such a conclusion.”, the court added.

The Court acknowledged that the prosecutrix was a child at the time of the incident and remained silent during her testimony, shedding only tears. The Court held that her silence could not be used in favor of the accused, as it was a result of trauma.

The Court, referencing multiple precedents, emphasized that while a child witness's testimony requires careful scrutiny, it can serve as the foundation for a conviction if deemed credible. Furthermore, the inability of a child to testify due to valid reasons does not automatically absolve the accused of liability.

“Reference can be made to State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat, wherein the prosecutrix was “deaf and dumb and mentally retarded”. The Court held that even in the absence of her being examined as a witness, other evidence on record was sufficient to record conviction of the accused. The principle of law, therefore, is that if the prosecutrix is unable to testify, or for some justifiable reason remains unexamined, the possibility of conviction is automatically excluded.”, the court observed.

“We fully endorse this view. The upshot of the discussion is that the absence of evidence of the prosecutrix is, not in all cases, a negative to be accounted for in the prosecution case.”, the court held.

Reference was made to the recent judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh which summarised the principles relating to the evaluation of child witness's testimony.

The Supreme Court also criticised the High Court for revealing the name of the victim in the judgment.

Since the offence took place in 1986, and the High Court decided the appeal filed in 1987 only in 2013, the Supreme Court chose not to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and decided the matter by evaluating the evidence.

Allowing the State's appeal, the Court restored the conviction and sentence of 7 years imprisonment under Section 376 IPC.

"It is a matter of great sadness that this minor girl and her family have to go through nearly four decades of life, waiting to close this horrific chapter of her/their lives," the Court said in its judgment.

Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS CHATRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv. Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv.