Man acquitted in 19-yr-old rape case

Excelsior Correspondent

SRINAGAR, Oct 3: High Court held that criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted a man of rape and other charges in 19 year old case citing discrepancies in prosecution witnesses during trial of the case.

Justice Sanjay Parihar set aside the sentence awarded to the appellant-Mohad Ashraf Ganie of Beerwah Budgam by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Budgam, in FIR No. 309/2007 of Police Station Budgam on 07.11.2023.

"The appellant, Mohammad Ashraf Ganie, is acquitted of all the charges by extending to him the benefit of doubt. He shall be released from custody forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case", Justice Parihar directed.

The court on discrepancies in prosecution witnesses said the criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

"Where two reasonably possible views emerge from the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. The benefit of doubt is not a matter of grace but a necessary consequence of the prosecution's failure to cross the required threshold of proof. The findings of the Trial Court, therefore, cannot be sustained.", Justice Parihar said.

The appellant-Ganie was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years for committing rape and fine of Rs. 1,00,000, rigorous imprisonment of five years for house trespass and simple imprisonment of one year for criminal intimidation.

"A conviction may, therefore, rest upon her sole testimony where it is found reliable and inspires confidence. At the same time, this principle does not dilute the fundamental requirement that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt" the court said adding "Where the testimony suffers from material inconsistencies or the surrounding circumstances create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version, the Court must subject the evidence to careful scrutiny", read the judgment.

The court further added that the evidence has to be assessed cumulatively and not by examining each infirmity in isolation. It is true that a conviction for an offence of sexual assault may rest upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix where such testimony is of sterling quality and inspires confidence but where material circumstances create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version, the Court cannot dispense with the settled requirement that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.