The prosecution must prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant delays or contradictions in testimonies can undermine a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Mohan Lal, J.

1. Instant Criminal Conviction Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred as the 'Code') is directed by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.10.2022 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2022 rendered by the Court of Ld. Principal Sessions Judge Shopian in file case No.69/2015/Sessions titled State Versus Mohd Maqbool Ganai, whereby, appellant has been convicted for commission of offences in FIR No. 179/2015 of Police Station Shopian under Sections 376 (2)(f)/342/506 RPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and fine of Rs. Ten Lacs under Section 376 (f) RPC, and 1 year & 2 years imprisonments under Sections 342 & 506 RPC respectively, the fine amount has been directed to be paid to the victim.

2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has assailed it's legality, propriety and correctness, and has sought it's quashment/setting aside on the following grounds:-

(i) that the impugned judgment is perverse, based on non-application of mind, the evidence on record has been misread and not appreciated in proper manner, scrutiny of evidence would clearly point to the uncontroverted facts that the appellant cannot be convicted at all, there is no evidence against the appellant, the court below has convicted the appellant on mere surmises, conjectures and imaginary projections;

(ii) that the settled principle of law that accused is always innocent till proven guilty has been absolutely ignored by the trial court and the guilt of accused has been pre-determined, Ld. Trial Judge has not appreciated the submissions and various authorities submitted before him and has not reached at specific conclusion, there is no coherence in the evidence, prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore no basis exist for conviction of appellant;

(iii) that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 16.07.2015, FIR has been registered on 24.08.2015 after a delay of 38 days, FIR has been lodged after due deliberations and consultations as no plausible explanation has been furnished in regard to delay in the registration of FIR, prosecution has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay which is fatal for the prosecution and even Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case has held, that inordinate delay of 11 days is fatal for prosecution [vide Rajesh Patel Versus State of Jharkhand , 2013(2) Criminal Court Cases 202(S.C.) para 9];

(iv) that there are material contradictory versions in regard to date of occurrence, PW-1 (Prosecutrix) has stated that she disclosed the incident to her parents and relatives after 48 days of occurrence and was taken to his house by accused at 11am in the month of August, furthermore PW-7 Mohd Yousaf Bhat has stated before the trial court that prosecutrix told her that the occurrence has taken place in the month of June, PW-6 Abdul Hamid Parray has stated that they took the prosecutrix for pregnancy test on July 17, 2015 and he was accompanied by father of the prosecutrix PW-4 Mohd Maqbool Parray & PW-3 Abdul Qayoom Parray;

(v) that the medical evidence is not supporting the allegations of rape, the court below has failed to appreciate this vital aspect of the case, prosecutrix was examined on 22.06.2015 at 6 pm by Dr. PW-16 Waseem Rasool who in his opinion certificate EXPW-M/16 opined that