The Supreme Court has acquitted Ram Singh, who had been convicted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Section 376 of the IPC, holding that the prosecution evidence fell short of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar restored the trial court’s order of acquittal, observing that the High Court had failed to properly consider the medical evidence and forensic science laboratory (FSL) report while reversing the acquittal.

The case arose from an allegation concerning the sexual assault of a minor girl in Himachal Pradesh in June 2009. The trial court had acquitted the accused in 2010, finding material discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and noting the absence of injuries on the child.

The High Court subsequently overturned the acquittal in 2016 and sentenced Ram Singh to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000.

Medical evidence contradicted prosecution version

The Supreme Court noted that the victim was medically examined within about twelve hours of the alleged incident. The medical examination found no injury, inflammation, redness, bruising or laceration on her body. The final medical opinion also concluded that there was no evidence indicating penetration.

The Court attached significance to the fact that the prosecution witnesses had consistently claimed that bloodstains were present on the victim's clothes. However, the FSL examination found no blood on the victim's clothes.

The Court also noted that the FSL report did not detect blood or semen on the mat and other articles allegedly connected with the place of occurrence.

Benzidine test considered relevant

The Bench also considered the argument concerning the Benzidine test, which had been conducted to detect blood.

The Court observed that the negative FSL result was a relevant circumstance, particularly when considered alongside the medical examination. The Court held that the absence of blood on the victim's clothes, coupled with the absence of injuries, could not simply be ignored.

Doubt over place of occurrence

The Supreme Court further pointed out inconsistencies regarding the alleged place of occurrence.

According to the victim, the alleged incident had taken place on a cot. However, the Investigating Officer stated that the incident occurred in the kitchen and admitted that there was no cot or bed in the kitchen.

The Court held that this discrepancy further strengthened the doubt surrounding the prosecution's version.

High Court failed to consider complete evidence

The Supreme Court observed that while reversing an acquittal, the High Court had focused on the oral testimony but had failed to properly consider the final medical report and the FSL report.

The Bench emphasized that the entire prosecution evidence had to be considered together. When the statements of the prosecution witnesses were examined alongside the medical and forensic evidence, the Court found that they created a serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.

The Court further observed that the detection of semen on the accused's undergarment, by itself, was not sufficient in the circumstances of the case.

Supreme Court restores acquittal

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court held that the trial court had rightly acquitted Ram Singh.

The Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment dated June 3, 2016, acquitted Ram Singh of the offence under Section 376 IPC and cancelled his bail bonds.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Case: Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2026 INSC 830
Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: August 11, 2026