The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence, including the age of the victim and the absence of consent, in cases involving sexual offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled "State of J&K v. Surinder Kumar" whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for commission of offences under section 363/ 376 RPC in FIR bearing No. 178/2013 registered with Police Station, Samba.

2. The judgment of the acquittal has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the prosecution had established the case against the respondent by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence, which in the ordinary course was sufficient to convict the respondent but the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and acquitted the respondent erroneously.

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG argued that the victim/prosecutrix was minor and the learned trial court has failed to appreciate her testimony in right perspective and acquitted the respondent despite the fact that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Mr. Rajnish Raina who volunteered to represent the respondent, argued that the learned trial court has meticulously considered the evidence brought on record and the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence brought on record and as such, the appeal is misconceived and deserves its out-right dismissal.

5. The case set up by the prosecution is that one Hussain had initially lodged a missing report in respect of his daughter-aged 15 years on 29.08.2013 with Police Station, Samba. Thereafter, on 30.08.2013 he lodged a written report in Urdu with Police Station, Samba stating therein that he had lodged a missing report with Police station, Samba and now he had come to know that Surinder Kumar and Suresh Kumar had allured his daughter and kidnapped her.

6. On receipt of the said information, FIR bearing No. 178/2013 was registered against both the accused for commission of offences under section 363/366/109 RPC. PSI-Nadeem was appointed as the Investigating Officer. He prepared the site plan and started search of both the accused. The victim was recovered from Dhannivasta. Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Accused- Suresh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were also arrested. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. She did not depose anything against the accused-Suresh Kumar and as such, Suresh Kumar was dropped from the array of accused. Victim was minor but as she was illiterate, so no documentary evidence could be placed on record by her father to demonstrate the minority of his daughter. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences against the respondent under section 363/376 RPC. The charge-sheet was laid before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Samba on 28.10.2013. The same was committed to the learned trial court on the same date. The learned trial court vide order dated 28.12.2013 framed the charge against the respondent for commission of offence under section 363/376 RPC. As the accused did not plead guilty to the charge, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence and out of 9 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The respondent also led evidence in his defence to rebut the prosecution evidence and the learned trial court after hearing both the parties, acquitted the respondent of the charge for commission of offences under section 363/376 RPC.

7. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the prosecution evidence.

8. PW 1- Hussain-Complainant (Father of the victim/prosecutrix) stated that the accused remained with him for eight months as driver. On last 28 of Badhro he had go