The Supreme Court has explained that although the victim's statement is important evidence in a rape case, its consistency with other evidence should be examined together. The Supreme Court has given this ruling in a case related to the rape of a minor.

The bench of Justices Balkrishna Dhakal and Shrikant Poudel explained this in the full text of the judgment of Shailung 41 vs. Shailung 32 (name changed) dated 13 Jestha. 'According to the basic principles of criminal justice, any charge must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.' It seems that confirming a charge only on the basis of conjecture or the balance of contradictory evidence would be contrary to criminal theory,' the full text states, 'Although the victim's statement is important evidence in a rape case, the consistency of the said statement with other evidence should also be examined together.'

The age of the victim (Sailung 32) at the time of the incident was 13 years and 7 months and the age of the accused (Sailung 41) was 16 years and 11 months, and both were under the age of 18, so the dispute should be assessed not only from the perspective of sexual offenses but also from the perspective of juvenile justice, the verdict states.

According to the Children's Act, 2075 BS and international child rights conventions, in disputes related to children, the verdict states that the best interests of the child should be given priority over the punitive and restorative approaches. "Not only will Sailung 41 be exempted from liability for the crime, but more sensitivity should be adopted compared to an ordinary adult defendant when evaluating the evidence," the verdict said. "In the absence of mutual harmony between the victim's statement and the physical examination report immediately after the incident and Sailung 32 unable to confirm it beyond a doubt, it does not seem possible to accept only the victim's investigation statement as conclusive evidence and find Sailung 41 guilty."

Stating that Sailung 41 will get the benefit of the doubt, the Supreme Court stated in the verdict that it cannot be concluded from the evidence attached to the case that he was completely innocent based on the analysis of the evidence, such as his long-term cohabitation with the victim in solitude, physical proximity, sexual conduct, and circumstantial evidence.

In particular, the age of the victim, the nature of the incident, the circumstances including the document, the situation of spending the night in a secluded place, and the victim's statement that the appellant touched the victim's chest, although it does not appear that the victim was raped, the decision states that she was treated inappropriately with sexual intent.

According to Sub-section (2) of Section 225 of the Criminal Code, 2074 BS, and that it appears that Sailung 32 was taken to an unoccupied house at night and held on to his chest, and that this fact was confirmed by the victim's medical examination report included in the case and the statement of the doctor who examined the victim's health.

Since Sailung 41 is 16 years and 11 months old, the Supreme Court has decided to sentence him to 3 years in prison and pay 20,000 compensation according to the Children's Act, 2075 BS.