Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 29: Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Jammu Khalil Choudhary has acquitted two persons who were booked in a kidnapping and rape case by Bishnah Police.
The acquitted accused are Happy Singh, son of Uttam Singh of Chorli, Bishnah and Sushil Kumar, son of Gian Chand of Barmee, Udhampur. They were booked under Sections 363, 376, 451 and 109 RPC on the complaint that they had kidnapped and raped a 14 years old girl.
After hearing counsels for the accused persons and Additional Public Prosecutor, the Fast Track Court observed, “on apparent perusal of the testimonies of most material witnesses of prosecution, the informant and the victim of offence, it is impractically clear that statements of both the witnesses are materially different from the case put up by prosecution”, adding “victim of offence is the star witness in this case, she being privy to the circumstances of occurrence. The offence relating to commission of sexual intercourse is such which is not committed in open. In view of secret nature of the offence, it is only the accused and the victim who can tell best about the actual circumstances in which occurrence took place”.
“Obviously accused would not tell about these circumstances, so long as he faces trial, therefore the victim of offence is the only person who can best narrate these circumstances. The testimony of victim of offence as such is of most crucial significance”, the court said, adding “therefore, the testimony of victim of offence is not just to be taken on its face value but has to be considered on the broader probabilities of inspiring confidence and truthfulness”.
“So far as the question as to if the victim of offence was kidnapped or abducted by accused persons, the evidence on record is of very weak character. The testimony of victim of offence herself is not free from doubt. There are material contradictions as to the manner in which kidnapping/abduction took place and in which circumstances it happened”, the court further said, adding “as per prosecution case there is no clear cut circumstances available to find out that how the kidnapping/abduction took place, however the victim of offence has stated in her evidence that it took place at her home when she was making meals. It is at that stage that accused is stated to have arrived at the scene and took her forcibly after closing her mouth. This circumstance appears to be highly improbable, as the place was not secluded. She has also not stated to have made any hue and cry when she was being taken forcibly that too on motor cycle”.
Therefore, from the evidence of prosecution, it cannot be established that victim of offence was kidnapped/abducted by accused. The circumstances in this regard are highly doubtful and improbable. The evidence is not free from suspicion as such evidence cannot be taken as proof of the circumstances”, the court further said, adding “on cumulative consideration of the matter in its totality having regard to the statements of witnesses would suggest that there is no concrete evidence on record connecting the accused with the commission of offence”.
Accordingly, the accused were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
Follow our WhatsApp channel