Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideCharming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya
2026 INSC 1102
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11881 of 2022
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 9 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 11, 106; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed. The trial court's judgment of 07.12.2021 and the High Court's judgment of 29.03.2022 were set aside; the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case (paras 63-65).
Key holdings
- A child witness's failure to identify the accused, and her admission that his name was supplied to her, left identity unproved (paras 46-48).
- A material improvement absent from a delayed FIR calls for close scrutiny and cannot shift the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act (paras 49, 51).
- Withholding, without explanation, a material witness who received the first disclosure warrants an adverse inference (paras 57-59).
- Medical evidence left untested because the defence had no effective opportunity to cross-examine could not be read in evidence (paras 40-42).
Brief Facts
The prosecution alleged that on 28.05.2015 the appellant sexually assaulted a minor girl with an intellectual disability while she was alone at home (para 6). She allegedly told her cousin that evening, and the cousin told the mother the next day, but the mother took no action; the FIR was lodged on 08.06.2015, after the child disclosed the incident to her teacher (paras 7-9). A Special POCSO Court convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 07.12.2021 and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, and the Meghalaya High Court dismissed his appeal on 29.03.2022 (paras 4-5).
Court's Findings
As the conviction rested mainly on a child witness with a mental disability, the Court re-appreciated the evidence (para 28). The mother's failure to act on the cousin's report, or even to check the child, was unnatural (paras 32-33). The cousin admitted she did not know the appellant, could not identify him and got his name from the mother (paras 35-38). The child said the prosecutor had told her what to say, that she had forgotten the offender's face and that her mother gave her the name; she was not confronted with her Section 164 statement (paras 44-47). Even allowing latitude for her disability, her evidence could not safely sustain the conviction without corroboration (para 48). The doctors' evidence was untested, as the defence had no effective opportunity to cross-examine (paras 40-42). The last-seen claim was an improvement absent from the FIR, so Section 106 of the Evidence Act did not shift the burden (paras 49, 51-54). Following Takhaji Hiraji, the teacher's non-examination justified an adverse inference, and the alibi evidence was wrongly brushed aside (paras 57-60).
Legal Principle
Where a conviction rests on a child witness who cannot identify the accused in court and admits being told his name, identity is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Unexplained delay, material omissions in the FIR and the withholding of the witness who received the first disclosure further support an adverse inference and acquittal (paras 48, 54, 57-62).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore Singh (2018) 9 SCC 137
An FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, but the absence of essential facts known to the informant points towards suspicion about the prosecution case.
- Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. AIR 1975 SC 1026
Omissions of important facts from the FIR, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.
- Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC 145
Withholding a material witness who could unfold the genesis of the incident or fill a gap in the prosecution case obliges the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.
