State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar, 2025
The Court recognized that an inimical relationship between victim and accused can affect credibility, and such cases require careful scrutiny, especially when complaints are delayed.
Judgement Details
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
29 September 2025
Judges
Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The incident occurred in 2008, when the complainant was returning home.
-
The complainant alleged that the accused, while intoxicated, teased her, molested her by holding her breasts, and outraged her modesty.
-
The victim filed a complaint 5 days after the incident.
-
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 341 and 354 IPC.
-
The appellate court acquitted the accused, stating the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
-
The State challenged the acquittal in the High Court.
Issues
-
Whether the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for molestation and wrongful restraint?
-
Whether the victim’s testimony is reliable considering the delay and inconsistencies?
-
Whether evidence under Section 14 of the Evidence Act regarding prior molestation allegations is admissible?
Judgement
-
The High Court upheld the acquittal by the appellate court.
-
The Court noted the victim admitted to having an inimical relationship with the accused and not being on talking terms with him, which called for greater caution in assessing her testimony.
-
The delay of five days in filing the complaint and contradictions in her statements (like dragging beneath a ‘beed’, presence of a jeep vs. Maruti car by witnesses) weakened the prosecution’s case.
-
The testimony of another woman alleging prior molestation was held inadmissible under Section 14 of the Evidence Act.
Held
-
The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
-
The victim’s testimony was found inconsistent and required caution.
-
The accused was acquitted of all charges.
Analysis
- This judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable and consistent testimony in sexual offence cases.
- The Court recognized that an inimical relationship between victim and accused can affect credibility, and such cases require careful scrutiny, especially when complaints are delayed.
- The decision also reiterates that prior sexual history evidence is generally inadmissible under Section 14 of the Evidence Act to prevent victim-shaming and maintain fairness.
- The judgment upholds the principle that reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, and prosecution must prove charges with cogent evidence, especially in sensitive matters like molestation.