news details |
|
|
| Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned on a Different Interpretation: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 31: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the acquittal of a man in a 2007 kidnapping and rape case, ruling that an acquittal cannot be reversed merely because the appellate court may interpret the evidence differently.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed two connected appeals filed by the State and complainant Abdul Majeed Beigh against the December 31, 2012 judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora, acquitting Mohammad Ramzan Mir of offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The prosecution case arose from FIR No. 120/2007 registered at Police Station Bandipora after the complainant alleged that his daughter had been kidnapped on June 22, 2007 and subjected to sexual assault.
The State argued that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the occurrence and that her consent was therefore legally irrelevant. It further contended that her testimony had fully supported the prosecution case and was wrongly discarded by the Trial Court.
The High Court, however, noted that the legally prescribed age of consent under Section 376 RPC at the relevant time was 16 years. It was raised to 18 years only after the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013 came into effect in March 2014.
The Court referred to the prosecutrix's school registration record, her mother's testimony and the medical evidence, all of which indicated that she was above 16 years of age when the alleged occurrence took place.
Examining her conduct, the Court observed that she had remained with the accused for one month and seven days. During this period, the accused allegedly left her alone inside a shop during the daytime, but she neither attempted to escape nor raised an alarm.
The Court also noted that she travelled in a passenger vehicle with other persons and remained silent even when the vehicle was checked by police at a naka.
"This conduct makes the allegation of forcible kidnapping and sexual assault doubtful," the Court observed while holding that the evidence suggested that the prosecutrix had accompanied the accused voluntarily.
The accused had also relied upon a marriage agreement allegedly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Kargil. Although the prosecutrix denied executing the document, a defence witness supported the accused's claim that the parties had entered into wedlock.
Justice Dhar reiterated that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and can be interfered with only when the Trial Court's findings are patently perverse, based on misreading of evidence or when guilt is the only possible conclusion from the record.
The Court held that the Trial Court had properly analysed the evidence and arrived at a legally sustainable conclusion. Both appeals were consequently dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Government Advocate Jagingeer Dar appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Mir Naveed Gul represented the respondent. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
