Trial Court Failed To Comply With Section 313 CrPC: J&K&L High Court Directs For Acquittal In 2006 Rape Case
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court acquitted the accused in the 2006 rape case observing that the Trial Court had failed to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 313 CrPC.
The Bench headed by Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that “The learned trial court has further held that the appellant has made a vague allegation in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.PC that witnesses have deposed against him because of enmity but at the same time, the learned trial court miserably failed in its statutory duty to put incriminating evidence to the appellant in accordance with law, whichhas caused serious prejudice to the appellant."
Senior Advocate Gagan Bastora appeared for the Appellant while Dy. A.G. P.D. Singh represented the Respondent.
In this case, the Appellant-Accused vide order dated April 24, 2003, was charged for commission of offences under Section 456/376 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
The primary allegations were that the accused entered the room of the victim on July 22, 2002 while she was sleeping and sexually assaulted her which led to the victim bleeding from her private parts. It was further alleged that the Appellant-Accused had a Kirch weapon through which he threatened the victim and her family members and managed to flee.
Based on the statement, FIR No. 33/2002 was registered by the Police Station, Ramgarh against the accused. Upon examination of witnesses, most of who were the family members of the victim, they shared similar accounts of the fateful night.
The doctor conducting the medical examination of the girl stated that there was no evidence of sexual assault. Further, the trousers of the victim were examined and no traces of blood were found that were claimed by the victim. The accused was arrested on July 28, 2005 and convicted by the trial court on October 14, 2006.
In this case, the Court examined the investigation conducted and the trial process. Upon examining the statement of accused recorded in the Trial Court under Section 342, CrPC, the Court held that “it is evident that no incriminating evidence with specific reference has been put to the appellant and in one question only the appellant has been asked to explain why these witnesses have deposed against him and he was not confronted with the incriminating statements made by those witnesses.”
On the question of examination of evidence by the Trial Court, the High Court stated that “The prosecution story appears to be not only doubtful but also improbable. This court has examined the judgment passed by the learned trial court and finds that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. The learned trial court has wrongly determined the age of the prosecutrix to be below 16 years of age and further has erroneously rejected the report of the Forensic Science Expert.”
In view of the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court stated that “By order of the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in challan titled “State vs. Raman Masih” arising out of FIR NO. 33/2006 of P/S Ramgarh is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside”.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: Raman Masih v. State of J&K