IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
ATUL SREEDHARAN, RAJESH SEKHRI, JJ.
Sunil Kumar alias Balwant S/o Pikha Ram -Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K through In-charge Police Station Reasi - Respondent
CrlM No. 315 OF 2020 IA No. 1 OF 2017
Decided On : 20-2-2025
(A) Ranbir Penal Code - Sections 363, 376, 120-B, 342, 506 - Appeal against conviction for rape and related offences - Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence - Delay in FIR registration raised doubts about the prosecution's narrative. (Paras 1, 19, 20)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction. (Paras 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of abducting and raping a 15-year-old girl, with the incident allegedly occurring on 09.05.2015. The FIR was registered on 12.05.2015 after a village meeting. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the un-exhibited MLC report. (Paras 20)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the reliability of the FSL report, and the delay in FIR registration. (Paras 14, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to provide corroborative evidence and the presence of reasonable doubt necessitated the acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 20)
Result: The impugned judgment is set aside, and the appellants are acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
Atul Sreedharan, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants who have been convicted by the impugned order dated 11.11.2017, arising from FIR No. 67/2015, which was registered against the appellants-herein for offences under Sections 363/376/120-B/342/506 of Ranbir Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. On 12.05.2015, at about 12.20 p.m PW-2, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a written report being EXTP-1 at P.S Reasi, alleging that on 09.05.2015, A-3, in the absence of this witness, took his daughter, aged 15/16 years, for collecting firewood in the jungle. The reputation of A-3 is dubious according to the prosecution, and that the prosecutrix was taken away in absence of her father. Thereafter, it is alleged that A-3, on the pretext of attending the call of nature went away and thereafter A-1 and A-2 reached the scene of occurrence and committed rape upon the prosecutrix one after the another. Thereafter, the accused persons are alleged to have kept the prosecutrix in the jungle for the whole night after which she was released from the custody and disclosed the whole incident to her parents after she reached home. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 11.05.2015, a meeting was convened in the village in which the appellants apparently threatened the father of prosecutrix with dire consequences if he takes any legal action against them. Based on EXTPW-1, FIR No. 67/2015 for the aforementioned offences was registered and the matter taken into investigation. The Investigating Officer PW-12 got the prosecutrix medically examined. The pyjama was re-sealed and sent to the FSL for chemical examination and the FSL Report/opinion was received on 24.05.2017, which is marked as Mark-A and Mark-B, respectively.
4. The FSL Report reflects that the Panama with cord reveals Human semen stains/spermatozoa on Exhibit No. K-99/2015 and blood stains were also detected.
5. The FSL Reports also discloses that the “Group of seminal stains/blood stains could not be determined on account of interfering substances.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW-1 who is the prosecutrix who states that she knows the appellants and that on the date of the incident, A-3 came to her house and asked her to accompany her to jungle for firewood. She further says that on that day her parents and her brother were not at home, and she was taken to the nearby jungle where they collected firewood. She further states that A-3 went away from there after receiving a phone call on the pretext of answering nature’s call after which A-1 and A-2, the appellants-herein, reached the spot and committed rape on the prosecutrix one after the other. She also says that she felt pain and she cried. Further, she states that she had to remain in jungle for the whole night and on the next day between 9 and 10 am, her father and uncle Tilak Raj reached the spot and upon seeing them, the appellants-herein ran away. She further says that the appellants asked her father to settle the matter amicably which he refused. She also refers to meetings that were convened for two to three days between the complainant side and the accused side and thereafter, on 12th the FIR was registered, and the IO took her to the hospital for medical examination and for recording her statement under 164-A Cr.P.C. She has proved her 164-A statement which is marked as EXTP-2 and also states that she was studying in the Government High School, Kanjali.
7. In cross-examination by the defence, she says that the appellants who were accused A-1 and A-2 were her neighbours and used to visit her house once or twice in a month and they were no strangers to her. She also denies any threat being given by A-3 in order to compel her to go to the jungle to collect firewood. She says that during the sexual assault, she suffered abrasions, and her clothes had got torn and that she sustained injuries on her shoulder
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant delays or contradictions in testimonies can undermine a conviction.
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
The credibility of prosecutrix's testimony is sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration when circumstances support her claims.
The prosecution must prove each element of a rape charge beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade undermines the reliability of witness identification.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age, to establish guilt under POCSO Act; discrepancies in evidence warrant acquittal.
The conviction for rape based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony is unsustainable without corroborative evidence, especially when inconsistencies and delays in reporting raise doubts.
(1) Rape – If evidence of prosecutrix is found to be reliable, then asking for corroboration, is nothing but adding a pinch of salt to her injuries.(2) There is a difference between “related witness”....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.