Jammu & Kashmir High Court Acquits Man In 22 Years Old Rape Case

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently acquitted a man accused of having committed a rape about 22 years ago. It observed that non-examination of the material Prosecution witnesses i.e. the Doctor and the Investigating Officer, not only causes prejudice to the case of the accused, but also to the case of the Prosecution and creates a reasonable doubt against his involvement in the offence.

"The statement of the prosecutrix, which has been based by the learned trial Court to record the conviction of the Appellant, is most unnatural, improbable and does not inspire confidence", Justice M A Chowdhary added while acquitting the appellant accused.

The appellant was accused of abducting the prosecutrix and forcing her into illicit intercourse against her will in the year 2001. Subsequently a case was registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the now repealed Ranbir Penal Code and the prosecutrix was recovered and medically examined. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the appellant pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

After considering the witnesses the trial court found the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 366 and 376 and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

The appellant challenged his conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to explain the six-day delay in filing the FIR after the alleged incident, which is deemed fatal to their case according to legal precedents. He further contended that the prosecutrix's claim of being raped by him lacked corroboration from any medical evidence, as no doctor or medical expert testified during the trial.

The appellant asserted that the prosecution's failure to present the Investigating Officer (I.O) as a witness caused prejudice, as the I.O's testimony could have clarified the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of seized clothing or chemical examination. Moreover, the appellant highlighted the contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, casting doubt on the reliability of their testimonies.

Lastly, the appellant submitted that the trial court did not dispose of an application to summon the doctor who examined the prosecutrix, further undermining the validity of the judgment and conviction.

While adjudicating upon the matter Justice Chowdhary noted that the prosecutrix had travelled all along from the place of alleged abduction to the place of recovery in a vehicle and stayed at the house of the brother-in-law of the Appellant without any protest, en route or at the destination, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix had been kidnapped against her will.

Although, the prosecutrix had stated that she was taken by the Appellant in a vehicle driven by some other person, however, that other person was neither cited by the Prosecution as a witness nor the prosecutrix has claimed that she had raised any alarm before him complaining of alleged abduction, the court recorded.

Upon examination of the trial court record the bench also noted that the prosecutrix had been examined on 16th of November, 2001 by a Doctor, who, after physical examination of the prosecutrix, was of the opinion that there was no mark of violence on any part of her body and that no spermatozoa were found, therefore, the Doctor was of the opinion that there was no evidence of any recent sexual intercourse.

"The Prosecution had withheld the aforesaid important witness from being examined during the trial. The Investigating Officer was also not examined by the Prosecution, who is the author of the case, from whom important and vital explanations could have been sought by the Defence through his cross-examination with regard to all the factual aspects of the case and his investigation into the case", the bench remarked.

Case Title: Raja Sajad Ahmad Wan Vs State of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 151

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment