Point of Law: Offence of Rape - Conviction Upheld - Reliability of statement of prosecutrix/victim - Statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration - Court may convict the accused on sole testimony of prosecutrix.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2018 and order of sentence dated 30.03.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Reasi, in a case arising out of FIR No. 69 of 2011 for offence under Section 376 RPC of Police Station, Reasi. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 376 RPC and vide impugned order of sentence, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution before the trial court was that on 04.05.2011 at about 6/7 PM, while the prosecutrix was going to her land to bring back the cattle, the appellant/accused, who was hiding himself, forcibly caught hold of her arms and dragged her to bushes. The appellant/accused gagged her mouth with his hand, broke the cord of her trouser and thereafter committed rape upon her. The appellant/accused thereafter ran away from the spot leaving the prosecutrix on spot in an unconscious state. The prosecutrix was brought back from the spot by her family members and when she regained her senses, she narrated the incident to her mother. The age of the prosecutrix is stated to be 17 years.

3. The report with regard to the above incident was lodged by prosecutrix who was accompanied at the relevant time by her mother, PW-2 Samitri Devi. On the basis of said report, aforesaid FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion. During investigation of the case, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the statements of other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. The salwar that was worn by the prosecutrix at the relevant time was seized and sealed, where after it was sent to the FSL for chemical examination. After investigation of the case, offence under Section 376 RPC was found established against the appellant/accused and the charge sheet was laid before the learned trial court.

4. On 22.03.2012, the learned trial court framed charge for offence under Section 376 RPC against the appellant/accused, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of its case. Out of 12 listed witnesses, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and given up one witness, PW-5 Rakesh Kumar.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant/accused under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellant/accused claimed that on account of land dispute between him and the parents of the prosecutrix, a false case has been lodged against him. The appellant/accused entered his defence and examined one witness, DW Des Raj, who also happens to be the father of the prosecutrix, in support of his case.

6. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and after taking into consideration the evidence led in the case, came to the conclusion that the charge for offence under Section 376 RPC is established against the appellant/accused and, accordingly, he has been convicted of said offence in terms of the impugned judgment.

7. The appellant/accused has challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that there are major contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution; that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has ignored the fact that there was an ongoing land disputed between the parties which has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses as well as by defence witness, who happens to be the father of the prosecutrix; that the learned trial court has ignored the statement of the father of the prosecutrix who has clearly stated that the report lodged in this case is based upon concocted facts; that the material evidence has been withheld by the prosecution and the learned trial court has failed to draw an adverse inference in this regard against the prosecutio