news details |
|
|
| Prosecution fails to prove Gulshan Ground rape case | | Court acquits accused | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 3 (JNF): The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Fast Track Court) Jammu Sanjeev Gupta has acquitted three accused namely Shabir Ahmed S/o Ghulam Hussain R/o Gonthal, Teh Surankote Distt Poonch, Romesh Sharma S/o Kaka Ram R/o Lahi Jindrah Teh & Distt Jammu and Mohd Ashraf S/o Mohd Abdullah R/o Drugmulla Kupwara at present Kafur Garh, Katal Batal, Nagrota in the much publicized Gulshan Ground rape case of 2008 as prosecution miserably failed.
The Fast Track Court after hearing the APP for the State and Advocate A K Sawhney with Advocate Aseem Sawheny Prince Khanna and Advocate Sarfaraz for accused persons and after going through the record of the file and statements of witnesses, observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix reveals that she has not been consistent while deposing in the court and as such, she cannot be said to be a reliable witness.
While lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix has made allegation that she was subjected to rape by Shabir Ahmed whereas other two accused made an attempt to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her but in the cross-examination she has categorically stated that accused had not raped her because they are not known to her.
The father of the prosecutrix has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile witness. Nothing was elicited from his cross examination by the APP to show even remotely that accused were involved in the crime. Prosecution witness namely Arshad Ahmed, Head Constable stated that on 1.6.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. he was present at his residential quarter in Gulshan Ground and on hearing some commotion, he came out and saw three ladies, one of them was crying and saying that she will not go with Shabir Ahmed as he will take her to a doctor. He has deposed nothing against the accused." the Court observed.
Court observed that from the aforesaid evidence on record, it becomes crystal clear that due to the inconsistent stand taken by the prosecutrix while deposing before the court, his testimony becomes highly doubtful. Conduct of the prosecutrix in blowing hot and cold at the same time makes it difficult for this court to rely on the statement made by her in the court and that being so, the accused must get the benefit of doubt because even other evidence collected by the prosecution does not corroborate her story.
Court further observed that In view of the factual discussion, it becomes clear that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a shadow of doubt which is accordingly dismissed and accused is acquitted held the Judge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
