The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar held that if the defence succeeds in contradicting a witness and such contradiction relates to the vital aspects of the case then the statement is unreliable and untrustworthy.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The father of the Prosecutrix had filed a missing report and later she was found in the Central Jail of Jammu. She claimed that she was abducted by the Respondent when she was 14 years of age and another girl and taken to Jaipur against her wishes and was even raped.
The Trial Court in its decision acquitted the Respondent of the charges for offences under Section 363, 376, 343, 506, and 109 RPC arising out of FIR No.2 of 2006 registered with Police Station, Rainawari, Srinagar since the version of the Prosecutrix during the Trial and her statement under Section 161 CrPC were entirely different. Further, she was found to be 17 years of age during her medical examination.
Further, during the Trial Court examination, 12 out of 15 Witnesses were recorded u/s 342 of J&K Cr.P.C. Here the Accused had claimed that the father had purchased a scooter but not paid the monetary sum for the same and when they had threatened to defame the father in case he did not pay the money, the father created a false case against the accused of raping his daughter, while the said daughter had eloped with a Sikh CRPF personnel.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Appellants have argued that the statements of the Prosecutrix and the 12 Witnesses presented by her were the key factors to put charges against the Respondents. Further, they argued that miscarriage of justice is happening as the Respondent has been acquitted by the Trial Court by stating credible statements to be ‘flimsy grounds’ and by not taking the solitary statement of the rape victim into consideration. Further, they contested that the delay in lodging the report was due to fear and shame.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondents presented the contradictions in the cross-examination and stated that there is no corroboration to her statements thereby stating that her statement is unworthy of credit. In her first statement, she stated that she was taken from in front of the school during admission to Jaipur and was raped at night and released after 6 days and she was found by police when she ran on the Jammu railway station.
However, later on, the statement changed and she informed that she was sold to a Sikh person for Rs, 10,000/- and she had to escape them where Army Jawan handed her over to police. Both of these are subjected to major contradictions and the I.O. was also unaware of the second story. Further, the lapse of 20 days in filing a missing report by the Prosecutrix’s father was also stated.
Observations of the Court:
The Court here considered the scope of interference in an appeal against the acquittal and referred back to the Supreme Court’s Judgments of Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No.2269 of 2010 and Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 whereby it was held that only if the Trial Courts findings are illegal or perverse, can the appellate Court interfere.
The Hon’ble Court observed that even though there may be contradictions in a Witness’s statement it does not totally discredit such statements. But they also highlighted that if the contradiction is on vital aspects of the matter then they do lead to the statement being unreliable.
The Decision of the Court:
Court stated that it is true the solitary statement of a victim of rape can be the basis of conviction but it is equally true that such statement should be unblemished and of sterling quality. The Court held that the statement by the Prosecutrix is on vital aspects and both are in contradiction thereby rendering them unreliable and untrustworthy and the appeal was discharged.
Case Title: State of J&K vs. Feroz Ahmad Najar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
Case No.: CRAA No. 09/2018
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA
Advocate for Respondents: Adv. Mr. Abu Owais Pandit
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
