Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR
Bilal Ahmad Mir – Appellant
Versus
UT OF J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 22.07.2023 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, whereby he has been convicted for offences under Section 363 and 376 of RPC. In proof of offence under Section 363 RPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and in proof of offence under Section 376 RPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The appellant has also been sentenced to a fine of Rs.2,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo further imprisonment of three months.
2) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 27.07.2004, complainant Manzoor Ahmad Gooru submitted a written report with Police Station, Sopore, alleging therein that on 23.07.2004, his cousin sister (hereinafter referred to as “the prosecutrix”), who is a minor, has been kidnapped by the appellant herein with a view to commit sexual intercourse with her. It was further alleged in the report that the appellant is a married person having three children and despite launching a search, the
The age of the prosecutrix is critical in rape cases; if she is below 16, consent is irrelevant, establishing the accused's guilt under Sections 363 and 376 RPC.
A perusal of Rule 12(3) of J.J.Rules itself reveals that the first priority has to be given to the Matriculation or equivalent certificate and in the absence thereof, to the date of birth certificate....
Point of law: There can be no iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable, a conviction can be based. However, in the case on hand, the testimony ....
The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence of a victim's age and lack of consent in sexual assault cases; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the age of the victim and the absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The court established that consent and age are critical in abduction cases, and the prosecution must prove intent to abduct for illicit purposes under IPC sections 363 and 366.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
