The court can base conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, but her testimony must be of sterling quality and free from contradictions and inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The appellant-State has challenged the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.02.2021 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for offences under Section 363, 376, 342, and 109 RPC arising out of FIR No. 230/2007 registered with Police Station, Budgam.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that PW-1, the complainant who happens to be the father of the prosecutrix, lodged a report with Police Station, Budgam, alleging therein that on 09.06.2007, the prosecutrix had gone out for undertaking some farming work but she did not return to her home. It was also reported by the complainant that he had come to know that his daughter has been kidnapped by respondent/accused No. 1-Shabir Ahmad Dar. It was also reported that the prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about 13 years. On the basis of this report, the police registered FIR No. 230/2007 for offences under Section 363 RPC and started investigation of the case. During investigation of the case, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of respondent No. 1 from a place near Cooperative Colony, Peer Bagh, Srinagar. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and she was also subjected to medication examination.

3. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix stated that on the fateful day, when she had gone out to get vegetables from the field at about 5.00 PM, while she was coming back to her home, upon reaching near Forest Check Post, accused Shabir Ahmad Dar came from behind in a taxi and asked her to come near him. She further stated that she was already knowing the said accused as he used to come to her house; that the accused Shabir Ahmad Dar offered to give her lift to her home and she accepted the offer and boarded his vehicle but the said accused instead of driving the vehicle towards her home proceeded towards Khan sahib. She asked accused Shabir Ahmad Dar as to why he was not taking her to her home, he responded by stating that he would do so after attending to some personal work; that she asked the accused to stop the vehicle but accused Shabir Ahmad Dar along with accused Shabir Ahmad Kuchay, who was also travelling in the same vehicle, tied her to back seat of the vehicle and extended threats to her. The prosecutrix went on to state that she was taken to an unknown place in a field inside a tin shed and was kept in captivity over there. She also stated that accused Shabir Ahmad Kuchay went away along with the vehicle whereas accused Shabir Ahmad Dar stayed along with her inside the shed. During the night, accused Shabir Ahmad Dar sexually ravished her on two occasions. On the next day, accused Shabir Ahmad Kuchay came there along with his taxi whereafter she was taken by the two accused to an unknown place and kept inside a under construction house. Again, accused Shabir Ahmad Kuchay went away from there whereas accused Shabir Ahmad Dar stayed with her during night and committed rape upon her. On 11.06.2007, when accused Shabir Ahmad Dar along with her were walking on the road near Peer Bagh, the police spotted them and accused Shabir Ahmad Dar fled away from the spot and she was saved by the police from the clutches of the accused.

4. After investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial court and vide order dated 02.08.2007, charges for offences under Section 363, 376, 342 and 109 RPC were framed against the accused and their plea was recorded. The respondents/ accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of its case.

5. Out of 08 witnesses cited in the challan, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ghulam Mohammad Mir, the complainant, PW-2 the prosecutrix, PW-6 the Medical Officer and PW-8 SI Asif Iqbal, the investigator of the case. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of two responde