The judgment emphasizes the importance of appreciating evidence in the right perspective and upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal when another view of the evidence is possible.

JUDGMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The judgment of acquittal dated 30.06.2021 delivered by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah in case titled 'State vs. Mohd. Aqib and others' arising out of FIR No. 76/2014 acquitting the respondents of the charges for commission of offences under Section 376(2) (G), 342, 363, 506 RPC, has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has given undue importance to the delay in lodging the FIR. Further that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer was not fatal to the prosecution case, as the prosecutrix had proved the case beyond any shadow of doubt.

2. Before we consider the present appeal, it is found that the record of the case was reconstructed by the trial court, as the court file was gutted in a fire incident that took place on 31.12.2020.

3. Mr. R.S. Jamwal, learned AAG argued that the prosecutrix had proved the case against the respondents but still the learned trial court acquitted the respondents by wrongly appreciating the evidence.

4. Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently argued that the material witnesses were withheld by the prosecution and even the father of the prosecutrix was not produced for cross-examination and more so, there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, as such the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The brief facts as they stem out from the charge-sheet are that on 19.07.2014 the prosecutrix along with her parents submitted a written application forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. by JMIC Gandoh, filed against the accused persons, namely Mohd. Aqib S/o Hadayatullah Sheikh, Hadayatullah Sheikh S/o Ahemdullah Sheikh, Mohd. Ayub S/o Ahemdullah Sheikh, Mohd. Afaq Sheikh S/o Nizam Din Sheikh and Mansoor Ahmed S/o Nizam Din for registration of case for commission of offences under Sections 376, 109 and 342 RPC. It was alleged that the prosecutrix was studying in 10th class. The respondents were having enmity with her father since long, for which a panchayat was organised and panchayatnama was prepared. On 14.07.2014, in the evening when her father and brother had gone to offer Namaz Travi in the Mosque, she was at home with her mother. After prayers, her father and brother came back. Her parents went to sleep. She was busy in preparing food for Sehri. At around 10/11 P.M. she went out to bring firewood. When she was picking up the firewood, the accused Mohd. Aqib, Mohd Afaq Sheikh and Mansoor Ahmed suddenly came and kidnapped her and took her to the house of Mohd. Ayub, where the accused/respondents reside. She and Mohd. Aqib were kept in one room and Mohd. Afaq and Mansoor Ahmed went out of the room. Mohd. Aqib raped her for whole night. Before Sehri, they lifted her and kept her in a field at Neeli and Mohd. Aqib told her that he would come back and they would go somewhere else. She was in unconscious condition and was afraid that her parents might be looking for her. On 15.07.2014, she went to the house of her paternal Aunt at Koko and narrated the whole incident to her. The respectables tried to enquire the matter, but only Hadayatullah Sheikh appeared before them and rest of the accused did not respond to the call of the respectables. On 17.07.2014 there was a panchayat at Bus Stand, Gwari, where the respondent No. 1 came but he lingered on the matter and did not give any response. On the basis of this written report, FIR for commission of offences under Section 342, 376 and 109 RPC was registered.

7. During the investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences against the respondents and Mohd. Aqib under Sections 342, 376 and 109 RPC and submitted the charge-sheet