Recently, The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside a judgment of conviction. The court observed that the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is not justifiable in the eyes of the law and is liable to be set aside. This appeal was filed before a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Rajnesh Oswal.
The court while hearing the appeal observed that it is clear from reading the appellant’s statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. that no incriminating evidence with a specific reference has been presented to the appellant, and the appellant has only been asked to explain why these witnesses testified against him without presenting him with their incriminating statements.
The court also noted that when the prosecutrix testified that the accused committed the crime of rape, indeed, the medical opinion should not be given much weight. However, it is also true that the medical evidence will have some weight if the prosecution can prove that the prosecutrix experienced bleeding in her private areas. According to the medical practitioner, the victim’s body bore no signs of assault and contained no traces of sexual activity.
Facts of the case
The present case was filed as an appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for the offence under sections 376 and 456 of the Ranbir Penal Code. In addition to this sentence, the appellant was also fined for an amount of Rs.1000. And in case of default of the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo a further sentence of 2 months.
The prosecution’s case was that one day, the accused entered into the quarters of the prosecutrix. He threatened her not to make noise otherwise, he would kill her. Subsequently, he slapped her, removed her trousers and sexually assaulted her. Due to this, she cried and near sleeping her brother and sister woke up. After hearing the noise, the parents of the prosecutrix also woke up.
The accused had bolted the door from inside and when the door opened, he threatened the parents with a weapon and fled from the spot. Thereafter, the parents along with the prosecutrix filed an FIR and statements were recorded. This case came before the additional session judge who convicted the appellant of the crime.
Now, the present appeal is filed by the appellant asserting that when the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s narrative, the learned trial court misjudged the evidence and erroneously convicted the appellant.
Judgment
In addition to this, the appellant has also contended that the FSL report has demolished the story of prosecution and the incriminating evidence against the appellant was not put to him, causing a miscarriage of justice.
In response, the respondent contended that the witnesses have unambiguously disposed of that the appellant has sexually assaulted the prosecutrix. Further, in lieu of the statement of the prosecutrix, the evidence of the doctor will have no bearing on the case.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the court observed that the trial court had not appreciated the evidence from the right perspective. There is a lacuna in the story of prosecution. Further, it was observed that the learned trial court had held that although the appellant had made a vague allegation in his statement recorded under section 342 Crpc that witnesses had testified against him out of animosity, the learned trial court had miserably failed in its statutory duty to present incriminating evidence to the appellant following the law, which had seriously prejudiced the appellant.
