Supreme Court Acquits Man After Nine Years in Child Rape Case; Finds Victim Never Identified Accused in Court, Medical Evidence Contradicted Prosecution Timeline
Supreme Court Acquits Dhanraj After Nine Years in Custody; Finds Fatal Identification Failure and Medical Evidence Inconsistent With Alleged Date of Child Rape
Facts
The case arose from an alleged sexual assault on a five-year-old girl in Ajmer, Rajasthan. According to the prosecution, the child went missing on 5 December 2016 while attending a family programme. After villagers began searching, she was found and brought home by two persons. Her mother noticed that she was bleeding from her private parts. The family initially refrained from informing the police because of apprehension regarding societal backlash.
The child stated that a boy had lured her towards a school, taken her into bushes, removed her clothes and sexually assaulted her. FIR No. 848 of 2016 was registered on 7 December 2016 against an unknown person.
Dhanraj was arrested nearly two months later, on 5 February 2017. The child identified him during a Test Identification Parade (TIP). He was thereafter prosecuted for offences including kidnapping, rape and offences under the POCSO Act.
The Trial Court convicted him and, inter alia, sentenced him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the rape offences. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his appeal on 20 August 2025.
Dhanraj then approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
The principal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the prosecution had proved Dhanraj’s identity as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, and whether reliance on the TIP could sustain the conviction when the victim did not identify him during her substantive evidence before the Trial Court.
The Court also examined whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s timeline and whether investigative defects—including non-production of the sketch and absence of scientific evidence connecting Dhanraj to the offence—created reasonable doubt.
Appellant’s Arguments
Dhanraj argued that he had been falsely implicated because of political rivalry with a local MLA. He emphasised that the FIR was against an unknown person and contained no physical description or identifying features of the assailant. Despite being a resident of the same village and remaining available, he was arrested only after nearly two months.
Most importantly, the child did not identify Dhanraj in Court. The defence argued that the TIP could not cure this fundamental defect because a TIP is only corroborative evidence.
The defence also pointed out that the child admitted that the police had told her Dhanraj’s name before the subsequent identification. Further, a sketch of the alleged assailant prepared with the child’s assistance was never produced during trial.
It was further submitted that although biological material was allegedly detected, no DNA or scientific evidence linked Dhanraj to the material recovered from the victim.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State of Rajasthan argued that the victim’s testimony was trustworthy and that she had no reason to falsely implicate Dhanraj.
The State relied heavily upon her identification of Dhanraj during the TIP and contended that her failure to specifically identify him from the witness box was merely a minor omission, particularly considering that she was only five years old at the time of the offence.
It further argued that medical evidence corroborated the fact of serious sexual assault and that absence of DNA evidence could not defeat an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
Analysis of the Law
Test Identification Parade Is Only Corroborative
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled distinction between a Test Identification Parade and substantive identification evidence.
The substantive evidence regarding identity is ordinarily the identification made by the witness before the Court while testifying on oath. Identification during investigation through a TIP is merely corroborative and cannot independently substitute substantive identification.
This distinction became decisive because Dhanraj was not named in the FIR, the child admitted that the police had disclosed his name to her, and the prosecution failed to have her identify Dhanraj while she was giving evidence even though he was physically present in Court.
The Supreme Court held that, in these circumstances, absence of dock identification was not a mere technical omission. It went to the very foundation of the prosecution case.
Medical Evidence Contradicted the Prosecution Timeline
The alleged offence occurred on 5 December 2016, and the child was medically examined on 7 December.
However, the doctor found a wound extending from the perianal region to the vagina, with pus and maggots, and specifically assessed the injuries as being five to seven days old.
The Supreme Court considered this contradiction significant. If the injuries were five to seven days old when examined on 7 December, they did not correspond with the prosecution’s allegation that the assault occurred only two days earlier.
Absence of Scientific Corroboration
The Court clarified that medical evidence could establish that the child had suffered injuries consistent with sexual assault, but it did not establish who committed the assault.
There was no DNA profiling, serological evidence or other forensic material connecting Dhanraj with the biological material recovered from the child. In the context of the already doubtful identification evidence, this absence assumed considerable significance.
Precedent Analysis
Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K, (1971) 2 SCC 715
The Supreme Court relied upon the three-Judge Bench decision to reiterate that identification during police investigation is not substantive evidence. Its purpose is to corroborate or contradict the evidence subsequently given by the identifying witness in Court.
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158
The Court relied upon Zahira while emphasising that criminal courts cannot act as passive recording machines.
Section 165 of the Evidence Act and Section 311 CrPC confer wide powers upon the Court to ask questions, summon witnesses and ensure that material necessary for discovering the truth is properly brought on record.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court identified several cumulative defects.
First, the FIR named no accused and gave no meaningful identifying features.
Second, Dhanraj was arrested nearly two months later based on an informer’s report, but the Investigating Officer could provide no reliable foundation connecting him to the crime. The IO also failed to investigate complaints that Dhanraj was being falsely implicated because of political rivalry.
Third, the sketch prepared with the victim’s assistance—a potentially crucial means of determining whether her original description resembled Dhanraj—was never produced.
Fourth, although the victim stated while testifying that she could identify Dhanraj if he appeared before her, neither the Public Prosecutor nor the Trial Judge actually asked her to identify the accused who was present in Court.
The Supreme Court strongly criticised this, describing it as “sheer negligence” by the Public Prosecutor and “gross ignorance” by the Presiding Officer.
Fifth, the medical assessment that the injuries were five to seven days old materially contradicted the alleged date of assault.
The Court concluded that the combination of these defects destroyed the prosecution’s ability to prove Dhanraj’s identity as the offender beyond reasonable doubt.
Dhanraj had already remained incarcerated for more than nine years. The Court declined to remand the matter for a fresh trial because the identification defect could not fairly be cured at such a belated stage.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that both the Trial Court and Rajasthan High Court had committed grave error in convicting Dhanraj and affirming his conviction.
The Court set aside both judgments, acquitted Dhanraj of all charges and directed his immediate release from prison, unless required in any other case.
The judgment reinforces an important evidentiary principle: a TIP is corroborative, not substantive evidence of identity. Where the accused was previously unknown, police disclosed his name to the victim, no reliable scientific evidence linked him to the crime, and the victim never identified him in Court, a conviction cannot safely rest merely on the earlier TIP.
Case Details
Case: Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 INSC 958
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan
Judgment by: Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: 7 September 2026
Impugned Judgment: Judgment dated 20 August 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2019, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment dated 5 September 2019.
Subject: Child sexual assault, rape, kidnapping, Test Identification Parade, dock identification, medical evidence, scientific corroboration and benefit of doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction and life sentence set aside. Dhanraj acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
