In cases of sexual offences, the sole testimony of the victim may suffice for conviction only if it is clear and consistent; inconsistencies may necessitate corroborative evidence, leading to acquittal if not found.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.08.2003 passed by the court of learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, (for short ‘the Trial Court’), whereby appellant in CRA No. 10/2003 has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for commission of offence under Sections 376, two years for offence under 366 of RPC and one year for commission of offence under section 344 RPC, whereas the appellant in Appeal No. 11/2003 has been convicted and sentenced to two years of imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 366 of RPC and one year for commission of offence under Section 344 of RPC. Besides, both the appellants have been directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.

2. The appellant-Abdul Gani Akhoon has impugned the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.08.2003 on the ground that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, and her statement was to be necessarily corroborated by other witnesses, in respect of the place where the prosecutrix was allegedly confined, who was the driver of auto rickshaw etc. Precisely it is urged by the appellant that other material witnesses were not associated with the investigation to corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix.

3. The appellant-Noor Mohammad has impugned the judgment on the ground that judgment is contrary to weight of evidence and the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective.

4. In nutshell, both the appellants have assailed the judgment on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence.

5. Mr. Z. A. Qureshi, learned senior counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 11/2003 has vehemently argued that there are different stories with regard to the prosecutrix going missing and the prosecution has not proved the abduction by the appellant by leading cogent evidence. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix has made contradictory statements and in view of the infirmities in her statement, the appellant could not have been convicted.

6. Mr. S. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 10/2003 has argued that the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and her evidence was not of such a nature that the appellant could have been convicted, particularly in view of the fact that the house wherein the prosecutrix was allegedly confined and raped, was neither identified by the prosecutrix nor any attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to identify the said place. He has further argued that as per the prosecution evidence, both the appellants were already arrested when the clothes of the prosecutrix were seized by the police on 02.03.1997, whereas the arrest of the appellants has been shown as 05.03.1997.

7. Mr. Jehangir Dar, GA has argued that the prosecutrix had clearly deposed about the commission of offence of abduction, wrongful confinement and rape by the appellants and her sole testimony was sufficient enough for conviction of the appellants.

8. Heard and perused the record.

Prosecution Case:

9. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 01.03.1997, the prosecutrix appeared in the police station-Nishat and stated that on 13.02.1997, she had gone to the house of her neighbour-Mohammad Shaban for getting a frying pan. After few minutes, Aziz Jan came on spot, shouting that she was having illicit relationship with the son of the owner of house. No one listened to her. Her husband was out of the home. She in order to get shelter in the house of her maternal aunt at Dalgate, reached near Lam, where Noor Mohammad met her and insisted her to go back to her home. Thereafter, she boarded the auto along with him and found Gani Akhoon already sitting in the said auto. She sat in between the two. She was blindfolded with her dupatta and taken to an unknown place and kept in a dark room, that was hav