The prosecution must provide credible and reliable evidence to support a conviction in rape cases; the testimony of the prosecutrix must possess 'sterling quality' to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against conviction judgement dated 7th June 2011 and Order of Sentence dated 8th June 2011, passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, in case FIR no.44/2022 under Section 366, 376, 323 RPC P/S Ganderbal, and for setting-aside the same on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. Perusal of the file reveals that the case of prosecution-State (respondent herein) is that on 13th April 2002, a written report was filed by one Rozi Jan (name changed), who PW1, before police station Ganderbal, in which she alleged that she had left her house towards Ganderbal and from Ganderbal she had to go to the house of her sister at Soura and when she was waiting to board a bus at Beehama Chowk, Ganderbal, a young man in a blue Maruti car bearing Registration no.JK01E-7319 came and asked her as to where she was going and that she was known to him and also her sister, she was offered lift on the pretext that he too was going towards Soura. She accepted the lift and, in the way, the said person tried to tease her and then she was forcibly without her consent taken by the said person to his house at Umerhair, Ahmad Nagar, in order to commit rape upon her. She was kept in a room, given a beating and when pleaded to be allowed to go she was given life threats. Besides that, she was pushed to the wall, as a result whereof she sustained injury in her head. Thereafter the accused committed forcibly rape upon her which was resisted by her by raising alarm but since there was no other person present in the house, as such, accused succeeded in molesting her. After commission of rape, she again begged to the said person and was allowed to go after her promise to come again on Saturday following. She mentioned the name of accused in her report as Sameem Ashraf Bazaz (appellant herein). She also informed the police that she could identify the house and that her age was twenty-two years. On receipt of, a case was registered. The lady was medically examined. The medical opinion confirmed commission of rape. The lady was handed over to her legal heirs. The investigation culminated in presentation of Challan against accused/appellant under Section 366, 376, 323 RPC. Charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined six witnesses out of listed witnesses in the calendar of challan.

4. This Court as an Appellate Court, in an appeal against conviction, has a duty to appreciate the evidence on record and if two views are possible on assessment and evaluation of evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused inasmuch as it is not correct to suggest that Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of conviction where the Trial Court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the court of Sessions by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. This is what has been held by the Supreme Court in Lal Mandi v. State of W.B. AIR 1995 SC 2254 ;relevant portion thereof is beneficial to be reproduced hereunder:

“To say the least, the approach of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an appeal against conviction, the Appellate Court has the duty to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of the evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. It is not correct to suggest that the “Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with” the order of conviction where the trial court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the Sessions Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. The observation made in Tota Singh's case, which was an appeal against acquittal, have been misunderstood and mechanically applied. Though, the powers of an appellate court, while dealing with