The judgment emphasizes the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity and discusses the legal principles regarding reliance on a single witness.

ORDER :

1. The judgment passed by the Trial court, whereby the charge-sheet has been dismissed and accused has been acquitted, is being challenged in this appeal by the erstwhile State of J&K (now Union Territory), through police station Mahraj Gungh.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone the record on the file.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received by police of Police Station, Mahraj Gungh, through Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, wherein it was alleged by him that his daughter (Prosecutrix) was kidnapped by accused on 18.08.2007 by deceitful means for illicit intercourse. FIR No. 62/2007 was registered under section 363 RPC and the investigation conducted. She was recovered from custody of accused on 24.08.2007, on identification of complainant. On completion of investigation, police found offences punishable under section 366 and 376 RPC established against accused and, accordingly, it presented challan before the Court-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, wherefrom the case was committed to the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar. Charges were framed under Section 366, 376 RPC by Trial court. During course of trial, six witnesses were examined, though prosecution had listed nine witnesses. On 15.05.2017, prosecution evidence was closed. As impugned judgment would show that benefit of mandate of Section 273 Cr.P.C. was not given to accused and he was put on defence on 02.08.2017. The accused is said to have failed to lead defence evidence and on 07.12.2017 right to lead defence evidence was closed. Arguments commenced thereafter. Upon consideration of prosecution case, Trial Court vide impugned judgement acquitted the accused/respondent.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for appellant that acquittal of the accused is challenged on the grounds that the Trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence; that there had been sufficient evidence to prove the charge; that the witnesses produced have established that the accused had kidnapped prosecutrix and subjected her to rape but Trial court while acquitting accused has not properly appreciated evidence through order of acquittal and finding recorded by Trial Court is, thus, contrary to evidence produced, therefore, acquittal is required to be reversed and accused convicted.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would submit that finding of Trial Court does not call for any interference as it has properly appreciated prosecution evidence. He further submits that there is no sufficient evidence to which Trial Court could have recorded order of conviction against accused. The charges framed against accused on the basis of evidence and proper appreciation have failed to prove charges. As there was no sufficient evidence, therefore, order of acquittal recorded by Trial Court does not call for any interference.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have brief account of witnesses, namely, PWs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Mst. Zubaida, Ms. (prosecutrix), Dr. Umer Sharif Kirmani, Hafiz-ullah Investigating Officer and Feroz Ahmad, (I.O.) produced by prosecution before Trial Court hereinafter:

(1) Prosecution witness no. 1, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, is the complainant. He alleged that his daughter was kidnapped and on his complaint the FIR in question was registered. He deposed that when he returned from duty on 18.08.2007, he was informed by his wife that accused and their daughter are not at their homes and she was perturbed. They went to the house of the accused to know about the whereabouts of their daughter but the family members of the accused informed them that their daughter was that their daughter was not at their home. Complaint was made to the police in writing. His daughter was recovered from the custody of the accused and got her medically examined. His daughter at that time was accompanied by his wife. He had no knowledge as when his daughter had left. He came to know about the same on return f