Absence Of Natural Evidence & Unexplained Delay In Filing FIR Fatal To Prosecution: J&K&L HC Acquits Man In A 2001 Rape Case

The Court was of the opinion that the Trial Court misdirected itself to record conviction of the accused-appellant as it was based solely on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, which does not inspire confidence to record such a conviction.

“…Considering the evidence in the case, it is found that the prosecution‟s evidence is not natural, consistent and probable to sustain the conviction of the Appellant for the alleged offences stated to have been committed by him. Non-examination of the material Prosecution witnesses, viz. the Doctor and the Investigating Officer, has not only caused prejudice to the case of the Appellant, but also to the case of the Prosecution and created a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the Appellant. The statement of the prosecutrix, which has been based by the learned trial Court to record the conviction of the Appellant, is most unnatural, improbable and does not inspire confidence”, a bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed in the matter.

Advocate Wajid Mohammad Haseeb appeared for the appellant, and G.A. Sajjad Ashraf Mir appeared for the respondents.

In the pertinent matter, the appellant-accused was alleged to have abducted the prosecutrix when she had gone to a spring near mosque to fetch water, where she was seduced and raped.

Pursuant to which, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar convicted the appellant for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376, Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced to: (i) rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 RPC; and (ii) rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 366 RPC, with a direction that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

The appellant, therefore assailing the impugned judgment and order inter alia contended that:

1. 1.the long delay of six days in filing of the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution, as such, was fatal to the prosecution case;
2. 2.the statement of the prosecutrix has not been corroborated by any medical evidence;
3. 3.the Investigating Officer (I.O) has not been examined by the prosecution in the trial court which has caused serious prejudice to the alleged accused;
4. 4.because of the glaring contradiction in the statement of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prosecution story appears to be highly doubtful;
5. 5. statement of the alleged accused recorded by the trial court under 342 CrPC is highly defective;
6. 6.the judgment and order by the trial court is based on surmises and conjectures
7. 7.as per the prosecution evidence it is clear that the case against the accused is manipulated;
8. 8.no independent witnesses has been cited or examined by the prosecution.

The single-judge bench relied on Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand (2013) 3 SCC 791 where the Apex Court opined that the High Court’s order upholding the Trial Court’s order of conviction, where the Doctor and the Investigation Officer were not examined by the Prosecution as wholly unsustainable in law.

The Court therefore, after taking note of the submissions made by the appellant and the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, observed, “The learned trial Court has ignored the important facets of the case to arrive at a conclusion that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 RPC and recorded conviction and awarded sentence, based on the sole statement of the prosecutrix. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has misdirected itself to record conviction of the accused/ Appellant on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, which does not inspire confidence to record such a conviction”.

Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of both the charges punishable under Sections 366 and 376 RPC where his bail and personal bonds also shall stand discharged.

Cause Title: Raja Sajad Ahmad Wani v. State of Jammu and Kashmir