2026:HHC:28740-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2014 Reserved on: 20.06.2026 Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Uploaded on: 15.07.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Appellant. Versus Janardhan alias Jasvir. …Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred present appeal against judgment dated 11.11.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.28- ST/7 of 2013, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Janardhan alias Jasvir, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'). 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2026:HHC:28740-DB 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that respondent was engaged as a mason by Randev Singh (PW-7), cousin of the prosecutrix, for construction work in Village Khurd. The respondent was also engaged by other villagers as a mason and, during that period, used to stay in the house of the parents of the prosecutrix. He was, thus, well acquainted with the family and was on visiting terms with them. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in December, 2012 or January, 2013, when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house, the respondent entered her room at about 10.00/11.00 p.m., committed rape upon her and threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone and out of fear, she did not reveal the occurrence to any member of her family. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that during the marriage ceremony of the elder sister of the prosecutrix on 27.01.2013, the respondent visited her house and stayed there. At about 12.00 midnight, when the prosecutrix was sleeping in a room along with her mother and sister, the respondent knocked at the door. However, when the sister of the prosecutrix opened the door, he fled from the spot. 5. According to the prosecution, on 26.02.2013, the respondent called the prosecutrix on the mobile phone and asked -3- 2026:HHC:28740-DB her to come to Dadahu, stating that he would marry her and threatening that, in case she failed to come, he would kill her. Accordingly, the prosecutrix reached Dadahu, where the respondent met her near Badon Bridge. Thereafter, both of them travelled by bus to Nahan, from where the respondent allegedly hired a Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. DL-2CAB-0890 to proceed towards Ambala. 6. In the meanwhile, at about 9.00 p.m., some unknown persons informed the Police Post, Katcha Tank, Nahan, that one Bihari boy had kidnapped a girl from the Renukaji side. Upon receiving the said information, the police contacted the driver of the aforesaid Tavera vehicle and directed him to return to Nahan. Consequently, the driver brought back the respondent and the prosecutrix to Police Post, Katcha Tank, Nahan. 7. During the same period, Joginder Singh (PW-4), brother of the prosecutrix, had also approached the police in search of his sister. 8. The investigation was conducted by ASI Prakash Chand (PW-16), who visited Police Post, Katcha Tank, Nahan, and brought the respondent and the prosecutrix to Police Station Dadahu. The prosecutrix was medically examined at Regional Hospital, Nahan, by Dr. Shahida Ali (PW-1), who issued MLC Ext. PW-1/B. The -4- 2026:HHC:28740-DB respondent was also subjected to medical examination. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the case property, duly sealed by the Medical Officer, was handed over to the police and subsequently deposited in the State FSL on 03.04.2013. On receipt of the FSL report, the final opinion of the Medical Officer was obtained. 9. On completion of the investigation and finding sufficient material against the respondent, the police presented the challan before the Trial Court. 10. Upon finding a prima facie case against the respondent, the Trial Court framed charges against him under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 11. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges and was subjected to trial. 12. To establish its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. After the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The respondent did not lead any evidence in defence. The prosecution relied upon Ext. PW-1/B, MLC of the prosecutrix. To establish her date of birth, reliance was also placed upon Ext. PW-8/A, the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, Ext. PW-8/B, extract of the Birth Register, Ext. PW-8/C, extract of the -5- 2026:HHC:28740-DB Parivar Register, and Ext. PW-8/D, the certificate issued by the Panchayat Sahayak. 13. At the outset, it would be appropriate to examine the veracity, reliability and credibility of the testimony of the prosecutrix, as she is the principal witness to the occurrence and the best person to depose about the alleged sexual assault committed by the respondent. 14. PW-1 Dr. Shahida Ali, Medical Officer, medically examined the prosecutrix and found no injuries on her external genitalia or on inner sides of her thighs. The hymen was found torn and carunculae hymenales were present. The vagina admitted two fingers easily. The cervix was downward and forward, whereas the uterus was found to be retroverted, normal in size and non-tender. The urine pregnancy test was negative. On the basis of her examination, the Doctor opined that the prosecutrix had been subjected to repeated sexual intercourse. 15. As per the State FSL report, neither blood nor semen was detected on the pubic hair. However, human semen was detected on the vaginal smear slides, which, according to the Doctor, suggested recent sexual intercourse. In her cross-examination, the Doctor stated that semen could ordinarily be detected on vaginal slides for a maximum period of 72 hours after the last sexual act. -6- 2026:HHC:28740-DB 16. Prosecutrix, examined as PW-3, deposed that respondent had committed sexual intercourse with her at about 10.00/11.00 p.m. nearly two years ago, but she did not disclose the incident to anyone on account of threats extended by him. 17. Prosecutrix further deposed that during the marriage ceremony of her elder sister on 27.01.2013, respondent came to attend the marriage and stayed in their house. At about 12.00 midnight, when she was sleeping in a room along with her mother and sister, the respondent knocked at the door. However, when her sister opened the door, he fled from the spot. 18. Prosecutrix further stated that on 26.02.2013, the respondent called her on the mobile phone and informed her that he intended to marry her. Pursuant thereto, she went to Dadahu and thereafter accompanied the respondent to Nahan in a bus, from where they hired a taxi to proceed towards Ambala. 19. The medical evidence, however, does not appear to be in consonance with the version of the prosecutrix. According to her, the respondent had committed sexual intercourse with her only once, about two years earlier, whereas the medical opinion indicates that she had been subjected to repeated sexual intercourse and it also further suggests recent sexual activity. The prosecutrix has nowhere alleged that any sexual intercourse had taken place after the alleged -7- 2026:HHC:28740-DB incident or during the journey undertaken on 26.02.2013. Nevertheless, human semen was detected on the vaginal smear slides. Admittedly, no DNA profiling was conducted to ascertain its source. In these circumstances, the presence of semen on the vaginal smear creates a doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version. 20. Another circumstance which affects the credibility of the prosecutrix relates to the alleged telephonic conversation with the respondent. In her cross-examination, she admitted that there was only one mobile phone in the family, which was being used by her brother, though all family members occasionally used the same phone. She also expressed ignorance as to how the respondent had obtained the mobile number of her brother. 21. Joginder Singh (PW-4), brother of the prosecutrix, deposed that he had been working at Ludhiana since 2008, and that he was the eldest among eight siblings. He further stated that the respondent had been invited by his family to attend the marriage ceremony of his sister. According to him, her sister had disclosed to their mother, two days prior to the marriage, that the respondent had committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix about two months ago. He also stated that he was the only member of the family possessing a mobile phone and on 26.02.2013, the said phone -8- 2026:HHC:28740-DB remained with him when he had gone to Dadahu, leaving no mobile phone at home. He further deposed that, upon his return, his family members informed him that the prosecutrix was missing, whereafter they approached the police. 22. PW-4 further stated that he had returned from Ludhiana on 21.02.2013 and remained in the village till 26.02.2013. On the said date, he left his house at about 9.00 a.m., reached Dadahu at about 10.00 a.m. and remained there throughout the day before boarding a bus for his village at about 5.00 p.m. His testimony, thus, indicates that the only mobile phone available in the family remained with him during the relevant period. 23. In view of aforesaid evidence, the prosecution version that the respondent had telephonically contacted the prosecutrix on 26.02.2013 appears to be doubtful. The evidence on record suggests that the only mobile phone available in the family was with PW-4 at Dadahu and was not available at the house of the prosecutrix at the relevant time. 24. The prosecutrix has stated that she met the respondent near Badon Bridge, Dadahu, and thereafter accompanied him to Dadahu on foot, travelled with him by bus to Nahan and then proceeded towards Ambala in a taxi. Upon receiving information from the police, the taxi driver brought them back to Police Post, -9- 2026:HHC:28740-DB Katcha Tank, Nahan, whereafter the prosecutrix was medically examined. There was no occasion or opportunity for the respondent to commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix during this period, nor is it her case that any such incident had taken place. In these circumstances, the presence of semen on the vaginal smear, which, according to the Doctor, could be detected only within 72 hours of the last sexual act, assumes significance and creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. 25. Aforesaid evidence has rendered the credibility, veracity and reliability of the prosecution case doubtful. It is cardinal principle of jurisprudence that in case of doubt, benefit of doubt has to be extended to accused. 26. Once the testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be unreliable, the remaining evidence on record, including the documents pertaining to her age, the State FSL report regarding the presence of semen on the vaginal smear and her recovery from the taxi hired by the respondent, does not materially advance the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we are not inclined to discuss the other evidence on record, which becomes irrelevant for doubtful veracity of the prosecutrix. 27. Respondent has advantage of being acquitted by the Trial Court, fortifying the presumption of innocence in his favour. -10- 2026:HHC:28740-DB Considering above-referred contradictions and discrepancies in evidence on record, learned Deputy Advocate General has also not been able to point out any ground warranting interference in the judgement of acquittal. 28. The State has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. 29. In view of above discussion, this appeal is dismissed. Bail and surety bonds furnished by and on behalf of respondent are discharged. Record be sent back. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 15th July, 2026 (Pardeep)