A man who spent close to nine years behind bars for the rape of a five-year-old child has walked free after the Supreme Court found that the police and the trial court had failed him at the most basic step of a criminal trial - getting the victim to identify him in the courtroom. The bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan set aside convictions handed down by both the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court, calling the identification process in the case deeply flawed.
Background Of The Case
The case dates back to December 2016, when a five-year-old girl went missing from her village in Ajmer district, Rajasthan, while attending a family function. A search was launched with help from villagers, and the child was found some time later, bleeding and in distress. She told her family that a boy had lured her away, assaulted her, and threatened her before fleeing. An FIR was registered two days later against an unknown person, since nobody knew who the assailant was at that stage.
Nearly two months on, in February 2017, the appellant, Dhanraj, was arrested. He was put through a test identification parade, where the child picked him out. On that basis, along with the child's account and the medical examination, the trial court convicted him under Sections 376, 376(2)(i)(j), 363 and 323 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Rajasthan High Court upheld this conviction in August 2025, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
What The Defence Argued
Counsel for Dhanraj argued that his client had been falsely implicated because of a political rivalry with a local MLA, and that the child never actually identified him while giving evidence in court. It was also pointed out that the police themselves had disclosed the accused's name to the child before the identification parade, and that a sketch of the assailant - prepared with the child's help in Jaipur - was never produced before the trial court.
The Court's Observations
The bench found the medical evidence troubling on its own. The doctor who examined the child on 7 December, 2016 noted that her injuries were five to seven days old, which did not match the incident date of 5 December given in the FIR - a gap the prosecution never explained.
But the sharper criticism was reserved for how identification was handled. The Court noted that the child, while deposing, said she could identify Dhanraj if he came before her - yet no one in the courtroom, neither the judge nor the public prosecutor, made any effort to have her actually do so, even though Dhanraj was present in custody that very day.
"The Court is not expected to remain a mute spectator where an aspect of evidence bearing directly upon the guilt or innocence of the accused is left unattended," the bench observed, adding that a trial judge is duty-bound to actively ensure that material evidence is properly brought on record rather than merely recording what parties choose to present.
The judges also flagged that the child, in cross-examination, admitted the police had told her Dhanraj's name beforehand - a fact that, combined with the missing sketch and the absence of any DNA evidence linking him to the crime, left the identification without real evidentiary weight.
Decision
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court set aside both the trial court's 2019 judgment and the High Court's 2025 verdict. The Court acquitted Dhanraj of all charges and ordered his immediate release from prison, noting he had already spent over nine years in custody.
The appeal was allowed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dhanraj vs. State of Rajasthan
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). 135 of 2026
- Judges: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan
- Decision Date: September 7, 2026
-300x169.webp)
