Jammu, July 22 : A Fast Track Court in Jammu has acquitted a man facing charges of abduction, rape and wrongful confinement, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence placed on record was insufficient to secure a conviction.
The judgment was delivered by Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Amarjeet Singh Langeh, in a case arising out of FIR No. 23/2018 registered at Police Station Satwari under Sections 366, 376 and 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was marred by significant contradictions, unexplained delays and absence of credible corroborative evidence.
According to the prosecution, the case was registered on a complaint filed by the husband of the prosecutrix, alleging that the accused, stated to be a pastor by profession, had taken his wife from her residence on December 29, 2017, after allegedly misleading her into believing that her husband had called her. It was further alleged that she was taken to Ludhiana, where she was wrongfully confined and subjected to sexual assault for nearly two months.
During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her husband, relatives, the investigating officer and the medical officer.
After examining the evidence, the Court held that while a conviction in sexual assault cases can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is reliable and inspires confidence, her statements in the present case contained material inconsistencies and lacked independent corroboration.
The Court found it improbable that the prosecutrix would leave her home and accompany the accused merely on his claim that her husband had called her without verifying the information or informing other family members who were present at the house.
The Court also took into consideration the statements of the prosecutrix’s parents-in-law, who stated during investigation and trial that she had allegedly maintained a relationship with the accused and had voluntarily accompanied him.
Referring to the evidence on record, the Court observed that the prosecutrix had stayed with the accused in a rented accommodation at Ludhiana for nearly two months, where she reportedly cleaned the room while the accused arranged meals. The Court held that these circumstances appeared more consistent with voluntary companionship than with allegations of abduction or unlawful confinement.
The judgment further pointed out discrepancies regarding the date of the alleged incident, noting that while the complaint mentioned December 29, 2017, the missing report reflected that the woman had been missing since December 28, 2017. The Court also noted the delay in registration of the FIR despite directions issued under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce independent evidence regarding the prosecutrix’s alleged escape from Ludhiana or the circumstances under which she returned to Jammu.
It also held that allegations relating to the accused selling the prosecutrix’s earrings remained unsubstantiated as no recovery was effected and the alleged purchaser was never examined during the trial.
The Court further criticised the investigation, observing that the investigating agency neither visited the rented accommodation in Ludhiana nor examined the landlord or other potential witnesses. It also noted that the investigation failed to establish whether the prosecutrix had opportunities to leave the premises, particularly when, according to her own statement, the accused used to leave the room during the daytime and she was never physically restrained.
Reiterating the settled principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences under Sections 366, 376 and 342 RPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the challan, acquitted the accused of all charges and discharged him from his bail and surety bonds.
The accused was represented by Advocate Bavesh Bushan, while the prosecution was conducted by Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra.(KNC)
