[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:303-Db vs Ashiq Ali S/O Fateh Mohd on 12 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:303-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Crl LP(D) No. 21/2023
Reserved on: 03.02.2026
Pronounced on:12.02.2026
Uploaded on: 13.02.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: "FULL"
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir ...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through SDPO, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
Through: - Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
v/s
1. Ashiq Ali S/o Fateh Mohd. ...Respondent(s)
R/o Dougan Hara, Tehsil Gool,
District Ramban;
2. Shabir Ahmad S/o Hussain
R/o Chaklas, Tehsil Mahor
District Reasi;
3. Bashir Ahmad S/o Chiyian
R/o Chaklas, Tehsil Throo
District Reasi;
4. Hussain Gujjar S/o Azeem Gujjar
R/o Chaklas, Tehsil Throo
District Reasi.
Through:- Respondent No. 3 present in person
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Parihar-J
( Crl LP(D) No. 21/2023 )
1. After hearing counsel for the appellant at length, we are persuaded to
consider the appeal on merits. Accordingly, Crl LP(D) No.21/2023 is
allowed and the leave is granted. Crl LP(D) No.21/2023 is disposed of.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:303-DB
2. Let the appeal be diarised. Having regard to the submissions made at Bar,
we proceed to take up the appeal for final consideration. Admit. Post
admission notice waived by the appearing respondent No.3.
3. The present appeal, preferred by the appellant, is directed against the
judgment of acquittal rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court,
Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in case titled State vs.
Ashiq Ali and others, arising out of FIR No. 95/2018 registered at Police
Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, for offences under Sections 376/109 of the
Ranbir Penal Code. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the respondents,
who were facing trial for the aforesaid offences, have been acquitted. The
prosecution seeks setting aside of the acquittal on the ground that the Trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It is
contended that the material witnesses, including the prosecutrix, had
supported the prosecution case, but the Trial Court ignored crucial aspects
of their testimony and magnified minor contradictions which ordinarily
occur during examination of witnesses. It is further pleaded that the
respondents were duly identified as perpetrators of the crime and the
evidence on record was sufficient to bring home their guilt.
4. Briefly stated, respondent No. 3 is the husband of the prosecutrix, whereas
respondent No.4 is her father-in-law. As per the charge-sheet, it transpires
that the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted by respondent No.3 in the
year 2012, whereupon her parents had lodged a report. Though she was
recovered by the police, she claims to have voluntarily returned to
respondent No.3 and subsequently married him. Initially a resident of
Chaklas- Throo, District Reasi, the prosecutrix along with respondent
2026:JKLHC-JMU:303-DB
No.3 shifted to Jammu in the year 2018-19, where they started residing at
Digiana. Respondent No. 3 was stated to be working as a waiter. It is
alleged that during their stay at Digiana, respondent No. 3 forced the
prosecutrix into prostitution by compelling her to engage in sexual
intercourse against her will, with respondents No.1 and 2, who were
acquaintances of respondent No.3, and that he received money for each
such act. The prosecutrix further alleged that upon informing respondent
No.4 about these acts, he supported the continuation of the said activity. It
is also alleged that on one occasion respondent No.3 attempted to send her
to a brothel at Jewel Chowk, Jammu, and upon her resistance, she was
beaten. Fed up with such treatment, she allegedly left for her parental
home at Gool along with her infant child and lodged a complaint on
22.03.2018. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 95/2018 under
Section 376/109 RPC came to be registered. After investigation, offences
under Sections 452, 147 and 313 RPC were dropped and only offences
under Sections 376/109 RPC were found to be established.
5. The charge-sheet was initially filed in the absence of the respondents, who
later surrendered before the Trial Court. Respondent No. 1 was charged
under Section 376 RPC on 30.04.2019, respondent No.3 on 06.03.2020,
and respondents No.2 and 4 on 20.08.2021. Out of the seven cited
witnesses, the prosecution examined only three witnesses, namely, PW-1
(the prosecutrix), PW-4 (Dr. Atula Gupta), and PW-6 (SI Kali Charan).
The remaining witnesses, including the parents of the prosecutrix, did not
support the prosecution case.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:303-DB
6. The Trial Court observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffered
from material inconsistencies and contradictions and that the medical
evidence did not support the allegation of rape. It was noticed that
although the alleged occurrence took place at Digiana, no report was
lodged at the local police station, and instead, the prosecutrix travelled to
her parental home at Gool and lodged the complaint after a delay of two
to three days. During examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix alleged
forcible sexual intercourse by respondents No.1 and 2; however, during
cross-examination, she contradicted herself by stating that she resisted
their advances and that they failed in their attempt. She further stated that
several persons were brought by her husband for exploiting her but she
could identify only respondents No.1 and 2. The prosecutrix claimed to
have obtained divorce from respondent No.3 but could not specify when
the divorce had taken place. The Trial Court found her testimony to be
unreliable, exaggerated, and lacking corroboration, particularly as her
parents did not enter the witness box. Consequently, the Trial Court held
that it was unsafe to rely upon her testimony and acquitted the
respondents.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have
carefully perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Trial
Court.
8. It is settled law that in cases of sexual offences, the testimony of the
prosecutrix assumes great significance and ordinarily does not require
corroboration. However, such testimony must inspire confidence. In Raju
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 858, the Supreme Court held
2026:JKLHC-JMU:303-DB
that while the statement of the prosecutrix is to be treated akin to that of
an injured witness, it cannot be accepted as gospel truth without scrutiny,
particularly where the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
9. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment reported in 2015 SAR
(Criminal) 274, wherein the Supreme Court held that in the absence of
medical corroboration and supporting testimony from close relatives, it
would be unsafe to convict solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the
prosecutrix. In the present case as well, the medical expert ruled out
recent sexual intercourse, though opining that the prosecutrix was
habituated to sexual intercourse, which is explainable by her marital
relationship with respondent No. 3.
10.The prosecutrix's narrative reveals multiple inconsistencies. She
alternately alleged and denied sexual exploitation by respondents No.1
and 2. She failed to specify dates or particulars of the alleged incidents
and did not disclose the matter to neighbours or other tenants residing in
the same premises. Her parents, though examined during investigation,
did not support the prosecution case at trial. Her testimony regarding
respondent No. 4 is also weak, as he admittedly did not reside with them
at Digiana and only visited occasionally.
11.From the totality of the evidence, it appears that the prosecutrix was not
forthcoming with a consistent and truthful account. Her testimony is
riddled with contradictions and improvements and falls short of the
standard required to sustain a conviction. The possibility of false
implication, particularly in the backdrop of matrimonial discord and
alleged divorce, cannot be ruled out.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:303-DB
12. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a
well-reasoned conclusion. The presumption of innocence, which already
stood in favour of the respondents, has been further reinforced by their
acquittal. No perversity or illegality is discernible in the impugned
judgment warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal
is devoid of merit and is dismissed along with connected application(s), if
any.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
12.02.2026
Akhil Dev
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes
Whether the order is reportable? No
