Legal Review and Analysis of Varun Kumar Alias Sonu vs The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors 2025 INSC 1232

1. Heading of the Judgment
Varun Kumar Alias Sonu vs The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2018, Supreme Court of India. Decided on October 14, 2025. Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.

2. Related Laws and Sections
This judgment pertains to the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 363: Punishment for Kidnapping.

• Section 366: Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.

• Section 376: Punishment for Rape.

• Section 377: Unnatural offences.

3. Basic Judgment Details
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convict-appellant, Varun Kumar. The Court upheld the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had reversed the appellant's acquittal by the Trial Court and convicted him for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

4. Core Legal Principles and Judicial Analysis

The Supreme Court's judgment primarily addresses two core legal issues: the credibility of a victim's testimony and the scope of appellate interference in an order of acquittal.

A. The Victim as a Sterling Witness and the Value of Ocular Evidence

• The Issue: The appellant contended that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove sexual assault and that there were discrepancies in the prosecution's case. He argued that the victim's testimony could not be relied upon as a "sterling witness" and that the conflict between medical and ocular evidence should entitle him to the benefit of doubt.

• The Supreme Court's Address: The Court firmly rejected this argument. It conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim (PW-4) and the two doctors (PW-1 and PW-2).
  Victim's Testimony (PW-4): The Court noted that the victim gave a clear, consistent, and detailed account of the events, including being taken to Una, staying at the co-accused's house, and being subjected to both natural and unnatural sexual intercourse by the appellant on multiple occasions. The Court held that her testimony was of a "sterling" quality, meaning it was trustworthy and reliable on its own.
  Medical Evidence (PWs 1 & 2): The Court clarified that the medical evidence, while not conclusively proving penetration, did not rule out the possibility of sexual intercourse. PW-1 testified that the victim admitted to sexual intercourse during the examination and that there was "nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place." PW-2 stated that while there was no direct evidence of anal intercourse, "the possibility of sodomy cannot be ruled out." The Court emphasized that the medical evidence, therefore, was not in conflict with but rather supported the victim's ocular account.

• Analysis: This reaffirms the settled legal principle that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital and can form the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence. Corroboration is not an absolute necessity unless the court finds it imperative. The absence of conclusive medical evidence does not negate a credible ocular testimony.

B. Appellate Interference in Orders of Acquittal

• The Issue: The appellant argued that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing the Trial Court's acquittal. He contended that when two views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the view favouring the accused.

• The Supreme Court's Address: The Court acknowledged the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal. However, it held that this limitation is not a bar against correcting a clear error. The Court found that the Trial Court had erroneously extended the benefit of doubt despite the presence of strong, credible evidence. The High Court was justified in reappreciating the evidence and concluding that the "only possible view" on the basis of the evidence was that of the appellant's guilt.

• Analysis: The judgment clarifies that an appellate court has the power and duty to reverse an acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse, based on a misappreciation of evidence, or is otherwise not sustainable in law. The principle of "two possible views" is not a shield to protect an acquittal that is fundamentally flawed.

C. Irrelevance of Consent in Cases of a Minor Victim
The Court also made a significant observation that even if the victim had "wilfully volunteered" for sexual intercourse, it would be immaterial to the case. This is because the victim's age was established and undisputed to be 15 years at the time of the incident. Consequently, the question of consent is legally irrelevant for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC when the victim is a minor.

5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal. It held that the High Court correctly convicted the appellant based on the sterling quality of the victim's testimony, which was supported by the medical evidence. The Court affirmed that the High Court's interference in the acquittal was justified as the Trial Court's view was not a legally permissible one. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

6. MCQ Based on the Judgment

1. In the case of Varun Kumar Alias Sonu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction based primarily on the testimony of the victim. What term did the Court use to describe the quality of the victim's testimony?
(a) Hostile Witness
(b) Sterling Witness
(c) Interested Witness
(d) Prosecution Witness
 (b) Sterling Witness

2. Regarding the age of the victim in the aforementioned case, which of the following legal principles was emphasized by the Supreme Court?
(a) The consent of a minor victim is a valid defence against a charge of rape.
(b) The medical evidence must conclusively prove penetration to establish rape of a minor.
(c) The question of consent becomes legally irrelevant if the victim is a minor.
(d) The burden of proving the victim's age lies solely on the accused.
(c) The question of consent becomes legally irrelevant if the victim is a minor.