news details |
|
|
| HC sets aside imprisonment in rape case | | | Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Mar 9: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Srinagar Bench today set-aside the imprisonment for 10 years in rape case with the observations that trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective which has led it to perverse conclusions.
The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are set aside.
This significant judgment has been passed in an appeal filed by one Shabir Ahmed Malik challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/P.O. Fast Track Court, Kulgam, whereby he has been convicted for offences under Section 366 and 376 RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned trial court whereby appellants has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000 for commission of offence under Section 376 RPC and a rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs 3000 for commission of offence under Section 366 RPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Justice Dhar after hearing both the sides observed that evidence led by the prosecution lends credence to the inference that the prosecutrix had accompanied the appellant/accused out of her own will. It has come in the evidence on record that the prosecutrix and the appellant/accused were caught by police while they got down from the vehicle in Kulgam. It is not a case where the police raided the premises of appellant/accused and recovered the prosecutrix from his custody. It has also come in the statement of PW Ghulam Mohammad Ganie, who happens to be the grandfather of the prosecutrix, that when police recovered the prosecutrix, she refused to go with her father. The witness has further admitted the suggestion that the prosecutrix eloped with the appellant/accused. He further stated that there were relations between the prosecutrix and the appellant/accused. These circumstances clearly go on to show that it is not a case of abduction and rape but it is a case of elopement of the prosecutrix with appellant/accused out of her own will and volition, which the learned trial court has failed to discern despite there being enough evidence on record to this effect.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
