SUA V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 2025 INSC 887:

DATE: 23/07/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih

FACTS:

The present appeal was filed against the conviction and sentence dated 02.02.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, and confirmed by the High Court on 12.07.2024. The Appellant was convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for wrongful confinement and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.200, and under Section 376 IPC for rape, with a sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300. The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred on 17.11.1988 around 2:00 p.m., and the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged approximately 20 hours after the occurrence. During trial, the victim’s brother turned hostile and claimed that no such incident occurred, asserting instead that the case was falsely lodged due to a boundary dispute instigated by their mother.

In support of the appeal, discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's case were highlighted. These included the delay in FIR registration, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the medical examination report which showed no external injuries, though the hymen was torn without fresh bleeding. Additionally, for the first time before the Supreme Court, it was argued that the Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, being 16 years, 2 months, and 3 days old on the date of the incident. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), the defense contended that juvenility can be raised at any stage of proceedings and requested an inquiry to determine the Appellant’s age to claim the benefits under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the corresponding 2007 Rules.

ISSUES:

The main issues in this criminal appeal revolved around two key questions. First, the Court had to determine whether the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for rape under Section 376 and wrongful confinement under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code were sustainable, particularly in light of alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), and the testimony of a witness who later turned hostile. Second, the Court had to consider whether the Appellant, who claimed for the first time before the Supreme Court that he was a juvenile, aged 16 years, 2 months, and 3 days at the time of the offense on 17 November 1988, was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of conviction on merits, affirming that the evidence, including the prosecutrix’s testimony and medical reports, sufficiently established the offense of rape. However, upon inquiry and verification, the Court found the Appellant was indeed a juvenile on the date of the offense. As a result, while the conviction was not disturbed, the sentence was set aside. The case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders under Sections 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act.

The Court, after reviewing the evidence, found the testimony of the victim to be consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence and witness statements. It reiterated the settled legal position that in cases of sexual offenses, the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix, if trustworthy, can form the sole basis for conviction. In this case, the victim a minor girl aged 11 had clearly deposed the details of the offense. Despite certain contradictions and a hostile witness, the overall evidence, including the medical report showing a torn hymen and the forensic confirmation through clothing (ghagra and underpants), substantiated the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Court held the findings of guilt by the Trial and High Courts to be sound.

On the issue of juvenility, the Court emphasized that a claim of being a juvenile can be raised at any stage even before the Supreme Court and after disposal of the main case, based on precedents like Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). An inquiry ordered by the Court confirmed that the Appellant was below 18 years of age at the time of the offense. The school admission records reflected his date of birth as 14.09.1972, making him 16 years and 2 months old on the date of the incident. As per the Juvenile Justice Act, the benefit of juvenility must be extended, regardless of when the claim is raised. Accordingly, while the conviction stood, the Court held that the sentencing provisions under the IPC could not be applied and referred the case to the Juvenile Justice Board to determine appropriate rehabilitative measures in accordance with the law.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between ensuring justice for victims of serious offenses like rape and upholding the rights of accused individuals, especially juveniles. The Supreme Court's reasoning reflects a firm commitment to established evidentiary standards in sexual assault cases, particularly the principle that credible and consistent testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient to convict, even in the presence of certain contradictions or hostile witnesses. Here, the minor victim’s account was found to be reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, leading the Court to uphold the conviction despite procedural lapses like the delay in FIR and alleged witness inconsistency. The Court reaffirmed the position that discrepancies that do not go to the root of the matter or materially affect the prosecution's version cannot by themselves be grounds to overturn a conviction.

At the same time, the judgment exemplifies the judiciary’s obligation to recognize and apply protective provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Even though the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time at the Supreme Court stage, the Court rightly acknowledged its admissibility based on precedents and ordered an inquiry. Upon confirmation of the Appellant’s age below 18 at the time of the offense, the Court set aside the sentence, recognizing that a juvenile cannot be subjected to penal consequences under regular criminal law. Instead, the case was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders focusing on rehabilitation, thus harmonizing punitive justice with child protection principles enshrined in the statute.