Prosecution Failed To Prove The Case: J&K&L HC Upholds Acquittal Of Police Officer In 20-Year-Old Rape Case
|A Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a police officer in a 20-year-old rape case holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Sekhri held that the examination-in-chief of a witness cannot be taken into consideration to fasten any liability unless the opposite party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the said witness as regards the information tendered by him in his chief examination. Subsequently, the Court upheld the acquittal of a police officer in a 20 years old rape case.
In that context, it was further said that "it shall be highly unsafe to consider the chief examination of a witness, who is not subjected to cross-examination and court in such circumstances, is left with no option, but to ignore such testimony".
Dy. AG. Pawan Dev Singh appeared for the appellants, while Counsel Gagan Oswal appeared for the respondents.
In this case, it was alleged that the respondent had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, accompanied by two other boys.
In the trial court, the victim and the person who filed the complaint were questioned by the prosecution, but they couldn't be cross-examined because the defense lawyer was absent. The defendants later requested to have the witnesses recalled, and their request was approved. However, it was later discovered that the victim had passed away and the person who filed the complaint could not be found. As a result, the trial court concluded the prosecution's presentation of evidence without conducting the cross-examination of the victim and the complainant.
In view of the matter, the Court observed that "both the material prosecution witnesses viz. the prosecutrix and the complainant, could not be cross examined and, therefore, I concur with the observation of learned trial court that incomplete statements of the prosecutrix and the complainant, in the absence of their cross-examination, could not be treated as a legal evidence, nor could be relied upon to fasten any criminal liability upon the respondents."
The Court was also of the view that the delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant was unnatural, and it observed that "Trial court has rightly observed that such a conduct on part of mother of the prosecutrix, whose daughter was sexually ravished by the respondents was unnatural".
In light of the same, the Court observed that there was no scope to raise a hypothesis of guilt against the respondents. The appeal was dismissed.
Cause Title: State of J&K v. Davinder Kumar & Anr.