Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, MOHAN LAL, JJ.
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Appellant
Versus
Sohan Singh alias Kala S/o Rattan Singh – Respondent
CRAA No. 42 of 2014
Decided on : 17-10-2023
Acquittal Appeal - Criminal - Sections 376, 364, 325, 323, 34 RPC - The court discussed the impugned judgment and the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court. The key legal provisions discussed include Sections 376 (rape), 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 325 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Ranbir Penal Code. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of consistency and cohesion in the statements of witnesses, the absence of corroborative evidence, and the medical evidence negating the commission of forcible sexual intercourse.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court in a case involving charges under Sections 376, 364, 325, 323, 34 RPC. The prosecution alleged that the respondents abducted and raped the prosecutrix. The appeal was based on the lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of corroborative evidence, and medical evidence negating the commission of forcible sexual intercourse. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of witness statements, the presence of corroborative evidence, and the medical evidence regarding the alleged rape. The court also considered the authenticity of the prosecution's case and the recovery of the prosecutrix.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of consistency and cohesion in witness statements, absence of corroborative evidence, and medical evidence negating the commission of forcible sexual intercourse. The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for witness statements to inspire confidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Acquittal Appeal was deemed meritless and outrightly dismissed. The impugned judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and the appeal was rejected. The respondents were acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
Mohan Lal, J
1. Appellant (State of J&K through Sr. Superintendent of Police Kathua) has commenced instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 13.08.2013 rendered by the Court of Learned Principal Sessions Judge Kathua (for short “the Trial Court”) in case titled “State vs Sohan Singh and others” in File No. 02/Sessions arising out of FIR No. 30/2001 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 364, 325, 323, 34 RPC, whereby, respondents herein have been acquitted.
2. Vide order of this Court dated 13.03.2014 the delay of 83 days in filing appeal was condoned, whereas, by the further order of this court dated 31.01.2017 leave was granted to the appeal for it”s final hearing. Bailable warrants have been issued to the respondents for securing their presence, but so far none of the respondents have caused their appearance to contest the appeal. As there is no immediate prospects of securing the presence of respondents, we have found it pertinent to scan the impugned judgment alongwith the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court. We have also heard Ld. Dy. AG for the appellant.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case, sans unnecessary details, as emerged out from the contents of charge-sheet are, “that on 14.06.2001, respondents barged their entry into the house of PW-7 Rani Devi [D/o Chajju Ram R/o Jagatpur Kathua, hereinafter referred to the prosecutrix/victim] and in furtherance of their common criminal intention to abduct PW-7 who fled away from the spot and took refuge in the house of one Roop Singh, respondents pushed their way into the house of said Roop Singh, tried to lift PW-7 Rani Devi forcibly, her mother PW-2 Kanta Devi tried to rescue her but she was injured by R-1 with a “Danda” and therefore, respondents abducted PW-7 Rani Devi in a Tata Sumo Vehicle and took her to their house situated at Kalanoor Gurdaspur Punjab where R-1 Sohan Singh (husband of PW-7) is alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix”.
4. The occurrence was reported to the police authorities of Police Station Lakhanpur by the complainant PW-2 Kanta Devi as an oral report, whereby, police swung into action and registered case FIR No. 30/2001 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 376, 364, 452, 325, 323, 34 RPC against the respondents. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet against respondents was laid in the Court of learned CJM Kathua, who vide his order dated 07.04.2003 committed the case to the Court of Ld. Principal Sessions Judge Kathua as mandated by Section 205-D, Cr.PC for the reasons that offences under sections 376/364 RPC were exclusively triable by the court of Pr. Sessions Judge Kathua. Be it noted, that as the whereabouts of R-3 (Prem Singh) could not be known, therefore, the proceedings against him were initiated by the learned committal court of CJM Kathua in terms of the provision mandated u/s 512 Cr.PC on 07.04.2003. Vide order of the trial court dated 22.08.2003 charges were framed against R-1 and R-2 for commission of offences punishable under sections 376, 364, 452, 325, 323, 34 RPC to which they pleaded not and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in a bid to prove it’s case against the respondents, out of total sixteen (16) witnesses listed in the charge-sheet, examined only twelve (12) witnesses namely, PW-1 Angrez Singh (witness to the search of R-3 Prem Singh) , PW-2 Kanta Devi (eye witness and witness to lodging of FIR,), PW-3 Swarno (eye witness and witness to seizure & supurdnama), PW-4 Mst. Kusam Lata (eye witness and witness to seizure & supurdnama), PW-6 Karan Singh (eye witness), PW-7 Rani Devi (witness to the abduction of prosecutrix), PW-8 Ashwani Kumar (witness to recovery of prosecutrix), PW-9 Romesh Kumar (witness to recovery of prosecutrix), PW-10 Parveen Singh (witness to recovery of prosecutrix), PW-11 Jeet Singh (witness to supurdnama of prosecutrix), PW-12 Dr. Renu Gupt
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistency and corroborative evidence in proving criminal charges. The court emphasized the need for witness statements to ins....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence in rape cases and the principle that serious infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosec....
The prosecution must prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant delays or contradictions in testimonies can undermine a conviction.
The credibility of prosecutrix's testimony is sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration when circumstances support her claims.
The importance of corroborative evidence and consistency in the prosecutrix's statement in cases of serious allegations.
: Non-examination of Investigating Officer may cause dent in prosecution case.
Acquittal in rape case upheld where prosecutrix turns hostile, denies force, disputes age records claiming majority, rendering testimony unreliable amid contradictions; prosecution fails beyond reaso....
The conviction for rape can be upheld based on the victim's credible testimony, even in the absence of corroborative physical evidence, emphasizing the importance of direct ocular evidence.
The conviction for rape requires credible testimony from the prosecutrix, supported by medical evidence; inconsistencies can warrant acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
