The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and trustworthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, especially in cases involving sexual offences, and the importance of conducting a thorough and unbiased investigation.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SEKHRI, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 28.09.2013, recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Pulwama, (trial court for short) vide which respondent has been acquitted in case titled State of J&K through Police Station Awantipora vs. Ghulam Mohammad Lone, for offences under Sections 363/376 of Ranbir Penal Code, 1989, (RPC).

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be apt to have an overview of the background facts.

3. Since the present case relates to the incident of rape of a minor girl, therefore, keeping in view the social object of preventing ostracism of the victims of sexual offences, the victim hereinafter shall be referred to as prosecutrix.

4. Shorn of irrelevant details, the prosecution case is that on 25.08.2006, complainant Ghulam Mohammad Mir (PW-1), lodged a written report at Police Station Awantipora alleging inter alia that his minor daughter was kidnapped two days ago and had been concealed at some unknown place by one of his relatives, namely, Ghulam Ahmad lone, for forcible sexual intercourse. On the receipt of this report, FIR No. 116/2006 for offence under Section 363 RPC came to be registered against the respondent. During investigation, prosecutrix came to be recovered on 27.08.2006 from the custody of the respondent/ accused from Cheripora, Anantnag. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and medical certificate was obtained. After usual legal formalities, the investigation culminated into presentation of charge sheet against the respondent for offences under Sections 363/376 RPC. The respondent was formally charged, for the aforesaid offences, whereby, he pleaded innocence, prompting the trial court to ask for the prosecution evidence. Prosecution has examined all eleven witness cited in the list of witnesses.

5. The respondent/accused in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the inculpatory material arrogated to him in the prosecution evidence and opted for defence evidence, but failed to produce any defence witness. Learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, has held that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt and, therefore, respondent has been acquitted of the charges.

6. The appellant-State has questioned the impugned judgment of acquittal, primarily on the grounds that learned trial court has failed to appreciate prosecution evidence in the right perspective and has recorded impugned judgment of acquittal despite copious evidence, both oral and documentary, placed on record by the prosecution. According to the appellant the conviction of the respondent, in the present case can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

7. Having heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the record, we have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances attending the present case as also the law which governs the field.

8. There is no dispute to the settled position of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, provided it is credible, trustworthy and confidence inspiring. The testimony of the prosecutrix, in the present case, on first blush, would indicate that she has made a graphic narration of the incident, which happened to her, however, a careful examination of the testimony of the prosecutrix in totality, would reveal that her statement is not only discrepant on material aspects, but also exaggerated, thus not worthy of credence.

9. It is case of the prosecution that respondent kidnapped minor daughter of the complainant and she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Respondent has been charged for the commission of offences under Sections 363/376 RPC.

10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 363 RPC, prosecution is obliged to prove that prosecutrix at the time of occurrence was a minor under the age of eighteen years. However, the record bears testimony to the fact that prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to