Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (Srinagar), while dismissing an appeal, was of the opinion that the Trial Court appreciated the prosecution evidence in the right perspective and impugned judgment being well reasoned did not warrant any interference.

"It is trite that mere kidnapping or abduction of women will not bring the accused under the ambit of Section 366 RPC and the prosecution is obliged to prove that accused had kidnaped or abducted the women with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will or in order that she may be forced or seduced to have illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse", the court opined on the applicability of Section 366 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

The pertinent matter dates back to 24.06.2008, the date on which the incident is alleged to have occurred. The accused was charged with offences under Sections 366/511 Ranbir Penal Code, that is- attempt to kidnap or abduct a woman with intent to compel her to marry against her will. 

The Trial Court after analysing the evidences adduced by the parties had concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Resultantly, it had acquitted the respondents.

The State questioned the impugned judgment inter alia on the grounds that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecuting evidence in the right perspective. As the witnesses corroborated each other on the material aspects the Trial Court erred in observing for consideration, the State submitted. 

After considering the factual matrix of the present case, the evidences and testimony of witnesses so produced to corroborate, the High Court found glaring contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The bench at many occasions in the judgment highlighted the aspects that failed to prove the offence.

The bench noted, "As already stated, the complainant PW-Ghulam Mohammad (father of the victim) in chief examination has made an endeavour to give a graphic narration of the occurrence as eye witness but he admitted in the cross-examination that he does not have personal knowledge of the occurrence and the occurrence was narrated to him by his daughter only".

Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that apart from the serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the prosecution in the Trial Court had failed to bring home guilt of the respondents within the meaning of Section 366 RPC.

Case Title: State of J & K though P/S Sumbal vs. Muzaffar Ahmad Hurra & Anr