STATE OF J&K Vs. FAIZ ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 24/1/2013 recorded by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Samba ["the Trial Court"] in file No.97-A/Session entitled State v. Faiz Ali, whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Sec. 376 RPC.

(2.) As prosecution story goes, the prosecutrix on 8/6/2009 was grazing her cattle in a jungle where she was called upon by the respondent to help him in finding out his goat. When the prosecutrix reached near him he caught hold of her and forcibly took her to jungle and raped her there. After committing crime, the respondent threatened her that he would murder her in case she discloses the incident to anybody. It was the complaint of the prosecutrix that she came home but did not disclose the incident to anybody because of the fear of the respondent. It was only on 30/6/2009, she narrated the whole incident to her mother, who, in turn, narrated the same to her father, who came home on the said day. On the basis of the written complaint filed on 2/7/2009, FIR No.56/2009 for commission of offence under Sec. 376 RPC was registered against the respondent and investigation set in motion. After investigation, offence under Sec. 376 RPC was found established by the police and Final Police Report in this regard was laid before the Court of Additional Munsiff, JMIC, Samba, who committed the case to the trial Court for judicial determination.

(3.) The trial Court framed charges against the respondent for commission of offence under Sec. 376 RPC on 20/9/2010 and put the respondent to trial. The respondent, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. With a view to prove its case, the prosecution examined prosecutrix, PW-2 Ravi Bhagat, PW-3 Mohd. Latief, PW-4 Sharifa Bibi, PW-5 Mohd. Hamid, PW-6 Dr. Rashmi Sharma and PW- 7 Dr. K.S.Chauhan. Incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing against the respondent were put to him and his statement under Sec. 342 Cr.P.C was recorded. The respondent, however, led no evidence in defence.