Summary and Analysis of Sushil Kumar Tiwari vs Hare Ram Sah & Ors 2025 INSC 1061
1. Heading of the Judgment
Supreme Court of India – Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 18377 of 2024)
Appellant: Sushil Kumar Tiwari
Respondents: Hare Ram Sah & Others
Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Citation:
Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors., 2025 INSC 1061 (Supreme Court of India, September 1, 2025)
2. Relevant Laws and Sections
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 376(2) (gang rape)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Sections 4 and 6 (sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
Section 164 (recording of confession)
Section 223 (joint trial of accused persons)
Section 464 (effect of error or omission in charge)
3. Basic Judgment Details
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the father of the victim, setting aside the acquittal order passed by the High Court of Patna. The Court restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court against the two respondents for raping a minor girl. The respondents were sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with fines.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Background
The victim, a minor girl, was raped multiple times by the respondents in 2016 after the festival of Holi. The crime came to light when she was found to be pregnant during a medical examination in July 2016. An FIR was lodged, and after trial, the respondents were convicted by the Trial Court. However, the High Court acquitted them, citing procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged inconsistencies?
Whether the joint trial of the respondents violated Section 223 CrPC and caused prejudice?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
A. Proof of Age, Pregnancy, and Abortion
The High Court had doubted the victim’s age, pregnancy, and abortion due to minor discrepancies in documents and oral evidence. The Supreme Court held:
The victim’s age was established as 12–15 years through school records, medical reports, and consistent witness testimonies.
Pregnancy and abortion were proved via medical reports and discharge tickets.
Minor variations in age or dates do not undermine the prosecution’s case when the victim’s minority is conclusively established.
B. Consistency of Victim’s Testimony
The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition during trial were consistent and credible. The Court emphasized:
In sexual offence cases, the victim’s testimony alone can suffice for conviction if it inspires confidence.
Delayed reporting was justified due to threats from the accused.
C. Defective Framing of Charge
The charge sheet incorrectly mentioned the date of offence as July 2, 2016 (the date of FIR), instead of the actual date (a few months earlier). The Supreme Court held:
While the charge was defective, it did not cause prejudice or failure of justice.
The accused were aware of the allegations and had full opportunity to defend themselves.
Section 464 CrPC allows convictions to stand unless a miscarriage of justice is proven.
D. Joint Trial Under Section 223 CrPC
The High Court held that joint trial of the respondents was illegal since they committed offences at different times and places. The Supreme Court disagreed:
Even if the joint trial was irregular, the respondents failed to show how it prejudiced their defence.
Separate trials would not have changed the outcome and would have further traumatized the victim.
Procedural irregularities alone cannot vitiate a trial unless justice is compromised.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court condemned the High Court’s hyper-technical approach, which overlooked substantive justice. The Court restored the Trial Court’s conviction, emphasizing that:
The prosecution’s case was credible and consistent.
Procedural lapses did not justify acquittal in the absence of actual prejudice.
The justice system must protect victims, especially minors, from procedural exploitation by offenders.
The respondents were directed to surrender within two weeks to serve their sentences.
Blog Posts
