STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: A Division Bench Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri set-aside the 25 years rigorous imprisonment in Gang Rape awarded by the Principal Sessions Judge Poonch, as there are so many missing links in the prosecution version and serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which make the prosecution case highly improbable and most likely concocted.
DB observed that on the conspectus of the matter and the discussions made hereinabove, we are convinced that the evidence on record is too weak and shaky to convict the appellants for commission of offences with which they were charged by the trial Court.
Highly contradictory versions of the prosecution witnesses coupled with improvisations made during the course of trial make the case of the prosecution totally unbelievable or at least highly doubtful. The medical opinion on record and the absence of opinion from the FSL with regard to the stains found on the seized bed sheets and trouser (shalwar) of the prosecutrix improbalises commission of offence of rape. The failure of the prosecution to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix by leading evidence of the school authorities or by placing on record the date of birth recorded in her matriculation certificate issued by the J&K Board of School Education puts heavy dent on the veracity of the prosecution case that at the time of alleged offence of kidnapping, the prosecutrix was a minor. The absence of injuries or even bruises on the body of the prosecutrix, who was allegedly dragged through forest and hilly terrain for one and a half kilometers by the appellants is another factor that cannot be ignored. It is also difficult for us to disbelieve the medical opinion rendered by PW-15 Dr. Shazia Anjum that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse during the past 24 hours, for, on medical and chemical examination, there was found no presence of dead or alive spermatozoa. The cumulative effect of the contradictions and discrepancies pointed out hereinabove and in the body of this judgment makes it abundantly clear that on the basis of evidence on record it is not safe to convict the appellants for commission of any of the offences with which they had been charged by the trial Court.
For all these reasons, DB finds merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court are set aside. The appellants namely Mohammad Aris and Mohammad Shakeel are directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
