Back
M. A. CHOWDHARY
Raja Sajad Ahmad Wani – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT
M.A. Chowdhary, J.—The Appellant, through the medium of this Criminal Appeal, has challenged the “Judgment of Conviction” dated 24th of February, 2010 as well as the “Order of Sentence” dated 25th of February, 2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar in a case titled ‘State v. Raja Sajad Ahmed Wani’, bearing File No. 97/Sessions, whereby the Appellant was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the now repealed Ranbir Penal Code (for short “RPC”) and sentenced to: (i) rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 RPC; and (ii) rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 366 RPC, with a direction that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
2. The factual matrix of the case, is that the Appellant, on 9th of November, 2001, was alleged to have abducted the prosecutrix (name withheld to hide her identity) from Chiterhama when she had gone to a spring near mosque to fetch water and that she was taken to Dangerpora, Padgampora, Pulwama, where she was seduced to illicit intercourse with her against her will an
Rape – Conviction cannot be recorded on solitary statement of prosecutrix which does not inspire confidence.
The credibility of prosecutrix's testimony is sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration when circumstances support her claims.
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
The court established that a victim's testimony, while crucial, must be corroborated; contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements rendered the conviction unsafe.
The court upheld the conviction for abduction and rape, emphasizing the credibility of the prosecutrix despite conflicting evidence.
The court ruled that a victim's testimony must be clear and corroborated for conviction; inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements led to the acquittal of the appellants.
In cases of sexual offences, the sole testimony of the victim may suffice for conviction only if it is clear and consistent; inconsistencies may necessitate corroborative evidence, leading to acquitt....
Though the evidence of the prosecutrix is liable to be believed, but there is no universal principle that the prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of improbabilities in her testimony.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure to identify the accused or utilize expert assistance in interpreting gestures of a disabled victim creates reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
