Ms. S. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr.
Background
A minor girl (aged 10-13) guarding crops in a field was attacked and raped by an unknown young man in broad daylight; her shouts brought three witnesses, and she reported the incident and identified the assailant's distinctive clothing immediately afterward. The accused was arrested, but no police test identification parade was ever held before she identified him in court during the trial. Both the trial court and the High Court acquitted him, reasoning that in-court identification without a prior test identification parade was not reliable enough, even though they accepted that she had in fact been raped. The victim, through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, appealed the acquittal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that a test identification parade is a rule of prudence, not a rule of law, and that in-court identification by a witness is itself substantive evidence which can be relied upon if the witness is otherwise trustworthy, even without a prior parade. Given the close, traumatic encounter in daylight, the victim's immediate and detailed reporting (including identifying the attacker's clothing), and corroboration from three witnesses who arrived on hearing her cries, the Court found her testimony completely credible. It set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under Section 376(1) IPC, and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 5,000 payable to the victim (with six months' further imprisonment in default), while upholding the acquittal on the separate SC/ST Act charge since that offence was not otherwise established.
Lesson Learnt
Courts can convict based on a victim's identification of the accused made for the first time in the courtroom: a missed police identification parade is not an automatic acquittal if the witness's account is otherwise credible and corroborated.