The credibility of a prosecutrix's statement is crucial for conviction; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant-State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 28.01.2017 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for offences under section 363, 376, 343, 506 and 109 RPC arising out of FIR No. 2 of 2006 registered with Police Station, Rainawari, Srinagar.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2005, PW1-Mukhtar Ahmad Hagroo, who happens to be the father of the prosecutrix, lodged a missing report with Police Station, Rainawari, alleging therein that his daughter, the prosecutrix, had gone to her school on 06.12.2005 but she did not return. In the report, age of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 14 years. The police launched search of the prosecutrix and ultimately they succeeded in finding her in Central Jail, Jammu, wherefrom she was recovered after getting her released on bail.

3. Upon recovery of the prosecutrix, her statement was recorded by the police. In her statement, the prosecutrix narrated that the respondents along with one girl, namely, Shazia, enticed her to go with them and she was taken in a white coloured Maruti car outside the State to Jaipur. On the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 2/2006 for offences under section 363, 376, 343, 506 and 109 RPC was registered and investigation was set into motion.

4. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C were recorded and the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. The certificate relating to date of birth of the prosecutrix was obtained and she was found to be 17 years of age. The respondents/accused were arrested and in respect of girl Shazia, identification parade was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Srinagar, but no clue about the said girl could be obtained. Accordingly, after finding that the offences under section 363, 343 and 506 RPC are made out against the respondent No. 1 and offences under section 363, 376m 343, 506 and 109 RPC are established against respondent No. 2, the challan was lodged before the trial court.

5. The learned trial court vide its order dated 20.07.2007 framed charges for offences under section 363, 376, 343, 506 and 109 RPC against both the respondents and their plea was recorded. The respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of its case.

6. Out of 15 witnesses cited in the challan, the prosecution examined 12 witness which include PWs Mukhtar Ahmad Hagroo, Mst. Saleema, Gowhat Ahmad Bhat, the prosecutrix, Abdul Ahad Head Constable, Dr, Shagufta Parveen, Dr. Narinder Singh, Dr. Latif Ahmad, Smt. Mubeena Jan, Mohammad Amin Bhat, Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Bhat and Ali Mohammad Dar. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of respondents/accused under section 342 of J&K Cr.P C were recorded. The respondents/accused claimed that the father of the prosecutrix had purchased a scooter from them but he had not paid whole of the sale consideration despite repeated demands. It was further stated by the accused that one day when they went to the house of the father of the prosecutrix to demand money from him, they came to know that the prosecutrix was having an affair with a Sikh CRPF personnel with whom she had eloped. The accused further stated that when they demanded money from the father of the prosecutrix, he raised a hue and cry and the accused threatened the father of the prosecutrix that in case he does not pay their money, they will defame him. Because of this, father of the prosecutrix implicated them in a false case. The respondents/accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the statement of the prosecutrix is not trustworthy nor her conduct is unblemished. The learned trial court also observed that the version of the