DB upholds 14-year jail term of Udhampur man convicted of raping eight-year-old niece

14/11/2026

Jammu, Nov 13: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the conviction and 14-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to a Udhampur man for raping his eight-year-old niece, observing that the testimony of a child victim, if reliable and trustworthy, can form the basis of conviction without independent corroboration.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal filed by Sanjay Kumar alias Sanju, a resident of Jib village in Udhampur district, challenging his conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur.
The trial court had convicted him under Sections 376 and 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), sentencing him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh for rape, besides one year's imprisonment for wrongful confinement.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on April 23, 2017, when the eight-year-old girl had gone to the appellant's house, who was her uncle, to play hide-and-seek with his children.
The prosecution alleged that the accused took the girl into a room, closed the door and sexually assaulted her. She subsequently returned home crying, with blood-stained clothes. The accused allegedly followed her and poured water over her, claiming that she was feeling hot.
The girl narrated the incident to her mother, following which her parents approached Police Station Rehmbal and lodged a complaint. An FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 342 RPC.
The child was subsequently examined at District Hospital, Udhampur, where doctors found a torn hymen, a first-degree vaginal wall tear requiring stitches and bleeding. The medical examination also indicated recent sexual intercourse.
Challenging the conviction, senior counsel Surinder Kour, assisted by Advocate Manpreet Kour, argued that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defence pointed to alleged contradictions in witness statements, delay in recording statements during investigation and the possibility of false implication arising out of a land dispute between the families.
Opposing the appeal, senior advocate Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocates Kartikay Sharma and Saliqa Sheikh, defended the trial court's judgment, submitting that the testimony of the child victim was consistent and supported by medical evidence.
After examining the evidence, the Division Bench observed that the prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of the child victim, her immediate disclosure to her mother, the condition in which she was found and the medical findings.
The Bench noted that the girl had remained consistent during cross-examination and had specifically denied suggestions that she was tutored by her parents or that the incident was connected with a land dispute.
The Court held that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if found reliable and trustworthy, can independently sustain a conviction and that corroboration is not a mandatory requirement of law.
It also observed that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution case when its essential features remain consistent and are supported by medical evidence.
Dealing with the delay in recording statements of the victim and her parents during investigation, the Bench observed that the investigating officers had furnished plausible explanations and that the delay, by itself, did not cast doubt on the prosecution version.
The Court further noted that the medical evidence corroborated the child's account, with the doctor confirming injuries consistent with penetration and opining that sexual intercourse had taken place within 12 hours of the examination.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny and Rai Sandeep alias Deepu vs State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench reiterated that the evidence of a child victim of sexual assault deserves careful consideration and can form the basis of conviction when it inspires confidence.
In its judgment, authored by Justice Shahzad Azeem, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence.
Finding no ground for interference, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court.
The judgment was reserved on October 30 and pronounced on November 13, 2026. It was declared reportable.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty