The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with unless it is perverse.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.09.2002 recorded by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for the commission of offences under Section 341, 354, 376, 511 RPC. The judgment has been assailed primarily on the ground that the prosecution had proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt but still the learned trial court acquitted the respondent by appreciating the evidence erroneously. It is also stated that the statement of the prosecutrix has been ignored by the learned trial court while passing the judgment impugned.

2. Mr. Illyas Laway, learned GA, laid much stress upon the statement of the prosecutrix and he vehemently argued that other witnesses examined by the prosecution have duly corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix and in view of the evidence laid down by the prosecution, the respondent was required to be convicted but wrong appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court has resulted into the acquittal of the respondent.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has been acquitted by the learned trial court after proper appreciation of evidence as there were material contradictions in the prosecution case.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. The record depicts that father of the prosecutrix, namely, Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, submitted a written application dated 01.08.2002 with Police Station, Bandipora, stating therein that at around 4.00 p.m., his daughter was coming back from school to her house. On the way, the respondent stopped her near High School Quilmuqam and attacked her. He also tore her trousers and in order to commit rape upon her, he pushed her on the ground. His daughter raised hue and cry and some pedestrians came on spot and rescued her. On receipt of this application on 02.08.2002 at 10:30 a.m. FIR bearing No. 206/2006 was registered for commission of offences under Section 341, 354, 376, 511, 294 RPC and the investigation was set into motion During the course of investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded and the trouser of the prosecutrix was also seized. After the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the respondent for commission of offences under sections 341, 354, 376, 511, 294 RPC, before the court of JMIC Bandipora. The charge-sheet was committed to the learned trial court vide order dated 16.10.22002.

6. Vide order dated 13.06.2003, the respondent was charged for the commission of abovementioned offences. The respondent did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Out of 09 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 05 witnesses were examined. The respondent also examined 02 witnesses in his defence.

7. Since this Court is dealing with an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, so this Court has only to determine whether the opinion framed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent was plausible one and if it is so, then no interference is warranted. In order to find out whether the opinion framed by the trial court was plausible one, it is necessary to have the brief resume of the evidence led by the parties. Since the prosecutrix is the star witness, so first of all this court will examine her evidence.

8. PW-2, is the prosecutrix. She has stated that about two years back the occurrence took place at about 4.00 p.m. she was coming back from her school towards her home. At around 4.00 p.m. the accused was standing near High School. When she reached there, the accused caught her by chest, pushed and threw her down with an intention to commit rape upon her. The accused untied the string of her trouser. She raised a hue and cry and people assembled on spot and she was saved by them. The accused threatened her and then fled away from the spot. The accused abused and asked her to touch her breasts