Important Point—Late filing of FIR in sexual offences is natural.

1. Vide judgment impugned dated 22nd April, 2014 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Session’s Judge, Srinagar, the appellant-Manzoor Ahmad Teli, has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC, after hearing on quantum of sentence, vide order dated 09.05.2014, has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 years under Section 376(2)(f) RPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months.

2. Registration of case on 10.11.2006 as FIR No. 161/2006 PS Saffa Kadal for commission of offence punishable under Section 376/511 RPC, on completion of investigation, culminated in filing charge sheet (challan) on 01.12.2006 for commission of offence under Section 376 RPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. Same was assigned to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Judge Small Causes), Srinagar, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, wherefrom, vide order dated 14.12.2006, it has been transferred to the Court of 3rd Additional Session’s Judge, Srinagar.

3. Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, after hearing prosecution and the defence, vide order dated 20.12.2006 framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case, out of listed 10 witnesses, produced 9 witnesses. PW-9, witness to the seizure memo, has not been produced whereas PW-4 (prosecutrix) though produced but being child, after recording satisfaction, was opined not to be a competent witness to make the statement. prosecution evidence has been closed on 11.06.2009.

4. Accused was examined in terms of Section 342 Cr. P.C. on 04.04.2012, incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied complicity in the crime and added that he was never living in a rented accommodation at Zampa Kadal. He has been implicated which fact is supported by the prosecutrix when before the Court she stated that she does not know the accused. PW-2-mother of the prosecutrix, at the instance of her husband (PW-1) has given a false evidence. No witness from neighbourhood has been cited as a witness. PW-1 knew that he (accused) was to register a case against him in the Crime Branch, it is in view of that, he (accused) has been involved in a false case. In case occurrence would have taken place, then the witnesses to the occurrence would have caught hold of him right on spot. An incompetent investigating officer has prepared a false case against him. The prosecutrix in the Court has not stated that he (accused) committed wrong with her. For grabbing money, accused has been involved i.e. PW-5 (father of PW-1) for providing government job and driving licence had firstly taken Rs. 20,000/- and then Rs. 10,000/-. Job was not provided, however, driving licence was provided. He (accused) had given the said money to PW-1 because his father (PW-5) would provide him job as he (PW-5) was serving in Fire Services Department.

5. Without following procedure as prescribed under Section 273 Cr. P.C. the accused was asked by trial court to produce evidence in defence. The defence did not produce any witness, as such, defence evidence was closed on 24.06.2010. The case was posted for final hearing.

6. Trial court record reveals that the case has been examined by learned Principal Session’s Judge, Srinagar, noticing that the procedure under Section 273 Cr. P.C. has not been followed, has in its order dated 04.04.2012 recorded that after hearing and examining the record in terms of Section 273 Cr. P.C. the accused is required to enter upon defence, in terms of Section 274 Cr. P.C. has been asked to enter upon defence and to adduce any evidence which he may have in defence. In defence accused has produce