IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must provide consistent and credible evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN LAL, J.

1. Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2013, (impugned herein) rendered by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Bandipora, Kashmir (for short “trial court”) in case FIR No. 230/2010 of Police Station Bandipora for commission of offences under sections 366/511 RPC in file no. 03/S whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

2. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2013, appellant has questioned its legality, propriety and correctness and has sought its setting aside/quashment, and has appealed for the conviction of the respondent/accused on the following grounds:

(i) that the trial court has recorded the statements of only 4 prosecution witnesses viz. PW-1 Nazir Ahmad (complainant), PW-2 Mst. Rehana (prosecutrix/victim), PW-3 Farhat Anjum (eyewitness) & PW-4 Mohammad Khalil, (Head Constable/IO).

(ii) that the trial court has dismissed the prosecution case in hot haste holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment of the acquittal is against facts and circumstances.

(iii) that the trial court has recorded acquittal of respondent/accused merely on the contradictions found in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and also on the basis that they are related to each other as no independent evidence has been produced, the infirmities/contradictions which don't go to the core of the case and have been ignored by the trial court which has lost sight of its salutary principle of law and has reached to the wrong conclusion that the prosecution case is full of contradictions.

(iv) that the prosecution evidence is of corroborative in nature which has not been appreciate by the trial court and has wrongly recorded the judgment of the acquittal.

3. In terms of this Court order dated 02.06.2022, the instant appeal stands admitted. Learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating the grounds urged in the memo of the acquittal appeal, has vehemently sought setting aside of impugned judgment by canvassing arguments, that the trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and has come to a wrong conclusion of acquittal in favour of the respondent/accused.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has supported the judgment of the acquittal by strenuously arguing, that the respondent/accused as per prosecution evidence has fled away from the scene of the crime, as such, offence punishable under sections 366/511 RPC has not been proved against him. It is argued, that statements of complainant, victim and eye witness recorded by the trial court have not connected the respondent/accused for the commission of offences attributed against him, the alleged occurrence is on 05.10.2010 and FIR has been lodged on 06.10.2010 while as the statement of the victim/prosecutrix in terms of Section 164-A, Cr.P.C. has been recorded after the delay of more than 90 days and no explanation has been tendered by the IO who has remained unexamined whereby great prejudice has been caused to the respondent/accused, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused from charges, as such, appeal filed by the appellant/state deserves to be dismissed.

5. To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has recorded the depositions of only four (4) witnesses viz. (i) Nazir Ahmad Lone (PW-1 Complainant), (ii) Ms. Rehana (PW-2 victim/prosecutrix), (iii) Ms. Farhat Anjum (PW-3 Eyewitness) and (iv) H. Ct. Mohammad Khalil (PW-4). In rebuttal, to disprove the case of prosecution, respondent/accused has not examined any witness in its defence. The prosecution has examined as many four witnesses out of listed five witnesses as under: