The main legal point established in the judgment is that conviction for rape can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but her statement must be assessed and tested on the touchstone of cross-examination to determine its evidentiary value and quality.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. Appellant has challenged judgment dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/P.O. Fast Track Court, Kulgam, whereby he has been convicted for offences under Sections 366 and 376 RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned trial court whereby appellants has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for commission of offence under Section 376 RPC and a rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- for commission of offence under Section 366 RPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the grounds that the same are illegal and contrary to law, that the evidence has not been appreciated by the learned trial court in its right perspective and that there are inherent contradictions in the prosecution case which have been overlooked by the trial court.

3. Before coming to the grounds of appeal, it would be apt to give a brief background of the facts leading to filing of this appeal.

4. On 22.01.2017, father of the prosecutrix lodged a written report with Police Station, D.H. Pora, stating therein that his daughter had gone to the house of her maternal uncle a few days back but after leaving for her home from her maternal uncle's house, she did not reach home. It was further alleged in the report that appellant/accused may have kidnapped the prosecutrix. The police registered FIR No. 02 of 2017 for offences under Sections 342, 363 RPC and started investigation of the case. During investigation of the case, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the appellant/accused on 22.01.2017 and she was subjected to medical examination. It was found that the prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age. Her statement under Section 164-A of J&K Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate and after investigation of the case, offences under Sections 366 and 376 RPC were found established against the appellant/accused. Accordingly, charge sheet was laid before the trial court.

5. On 08.03.2017, learned trial court framed charge for offences under Sections 366, 376 RPC against the accused who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was, accordingly, directed to lead evidence in support of its case. Prosecution examined all the eleven witnesses cited in the challan. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant/accused under Section 342 of Jammu and Kashmir Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he termed the case of the prosecution as false. No evidence in defence was led by the appellant/accused and, as such, the case was set down for final hearing. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, vide the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly that of the prosecutrix, are reliable and that no corroboration is required for placing reliance upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. On the basis of these observations, the learned trial court came to be conclusion that the evidence on record unerringly point towards the guilt of appellant/accused. It is this judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed pursuant thereto which are under challenge in this appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment and the evidence led before the trial court.

7. The charge against the appellant/accused is that he abducted the prosecutrix and thereafter committed forcible sexual assault on her. The most material and important witness in a case relating to a sexual assault is the prosecutrix. In such cases, the Court has to rely heavily on the statement of the victim of sexual assault and there is no rule of law that there has to be corroboration to her testimony before placing reliance upon her statement. It is a settled position of law that conviction for