Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 30: Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Khalil Choudhary has acquitted three persons facing kidnapping, illegal confinement and rape charges as prosecution failed to prove the case.
The acquitted persons are Jagmohan Sharma, son of Kamal Raj of Reasi, Rita Sharma, wife of Kuldeep Raj and Arti Sharma, daughter of Kuldeep Raj of Kanachak Jammu.
After hearing Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, the court observed, “the statement of prosecutrix, when read in conjunction with other prosecution evidence, it in unflinchingly demolishes her versions as the statement of the prosecutrix clearly do not inspire any confidence in view of other prosecution evidence”.
“If there are no material contradictions or discrepancies in the testimony of witness/witnesses, his/her evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies or exaggerations. However, distinction is required to be made between the material contradictions or discrepancies and the normal/natural contradictions /discrepancies”, the court said, adding “while minor contradictions do not corrode the credibility of the prosecution case, but material contradiction do so”.
“In the instant case, on re-evaluation of the evidence on record, I find that the discrepancies and the contradiction appearing in the evidence of the prosecution are not normal but material discrepancies which have the effect of eroding the credibility of the prosecution case”, the court said, adding “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”.
Stating that court doesn’t find any cogent and convincing evidence to establish commission of sexual intercourse on the person of victim of offence, the Judge said, “over all analysis of the evidence of prosecutrix as well as the doctor witness, with regard to committing of sexual intercourse by the accused there are major contradictions in their statements which creates doubt with regard to committing of rape by the accused”.
“Therefore, 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. The evidence of witnesses is not corroborative leaving doubt in the prosecution case”, the Judge said, adding “I am unhesitant to record that prosecution evidence cannot be said to definite, positive consistent and coherent so far as the case against the accused is concerned. A clear room for doubt is left out in the prosecution evidence. Here it is pertinent to note that it is not part of the duty of the accused to show as to why a false allegation has been leveled against them and why particular witnesses have deposed against them but it is bounded duty of the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt”.
“Further it is beaten law that strong suspicion, co-incidence and grave doubt cannot take place of the legal proof. Suspicion however, grave is not proof in absence of the reliable evidence and it is always unwise to act on mere suspicion”, the court said, adding “thus prosecution case fails and accused are accordingly acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Accused are relieved from bail and surety bond executed”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel