Sham Singh v. The State of Haryana
Background
The appellant and his brother were alleged to have raped their minor cousin at their home. The trial court first acquitted both, but on the victim's appeal the High Court sent the case back for fresh consideration, after which the trial court convicted them; the High Court then upheld the conviction (while acquitting their mother of related charges). By the time this appeal reached the Supreme Court, the brother had already served his sentence, leaving Sham Singh, who was still serving his, as the sole appellant.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found serious gaps in the prosecution's case: the medical report did not support recent sexual assault, no injuries were found on the victim despite her claim of being forcibly tied down, and key witnesses (the milkman who allegedly found her, the doctor who treated her, and a bystander) were never examined. Unrebutted defence witnesses testified that a village "panchayat" (informal community mediation) referenced in the case was actually held over an earlier slapping incident, not rape, and that the appellant's brother had only apologised for that slap. The Court held that the conviction rested on conjecture rather than reliable evidence and that the prosecution's story was "artificial and concocted." The appeal was allowed and Sham Singh was acquitted and ordered released.
Lesson Learnt
Even in cases involving serious offences like rape, where courts are rightly sensitive to a victim's testimony, a conviction cannot stand on assumptions alone: it must be backed by credible, consistent evidence, and unrebutted defence evidence or glaring gaps in witness examination can be enough to overturn even a conviction upheld twice below.