In Brief
Sham Singh was convicted by the trial court for rape after initial acquittal, conviction restored by the High Court. The Supreme Court acquitted him, finding the conviction rested on unsupported assumptions rather than credible evidence. Key failures included: no medical evidence of recent sexual assault, failure to examine crucial witnesses (milkman, doctor, bystander), victim's delayed mention of panchayat proceedings, implausibility of committing rape in a house with family present, and evidence the panchayat addressed a slapping incident, not rape. The Court held longstanding family enmity likely motivated false implication. While recognising courts must handle rape cases sensitively, they must equally protect accused persons from false allegations through rigorous evidence scrutiny.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.