SRINAGAR: The Principal District Judge of Budgam has acquitted a man who was accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl in the Nowgam area of the summer capital, Srinagar.
The accused was represented by Ahra Syed, Advocate, who vigorously argued against the accusations and charges brought by the prosecution.
On July 12, 2021, the police stated, “A person from the Shalina area approached the Nowgam police station with a written complaint alleging that his 9-year-old daughter had been sexually assaulted and raped by Adil Hussain Ganai of Shalina Budgam. Based on the complaint and taking cognizance of the matter, the police immediately arrested the accused. A case under FIR No. 71, under section 342, 376 AB IPC, and 07 POCSO ACT, was registered at the Nowgam police station, and further investigation was initiated.”
After a thorough examination of the case, Principal Sessions Judge Budgam, Khalil Ahmad Choudhary, delivered a 30-page judgment.
Choudhary stated, “Penal Code, 1860—S.376- Rape- Evidence- Medical evidence inconsistent with the evidence of the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix was aged 8 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. According to the doctor who examined the prosecutrix immediately after the incident, there was no sign of rape. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecutrix contradicts the medical evidence. The accused-appellant is entitled to acquittal.”
Choudhary further stated, “When the court examines the prosecution’s evidence, it becomes clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to presume the guilt of the accused, who is charged with offenses under sections 342, 376 AB IPC, and 07 POCSO Act. The prosecution must establish foundational facts with evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden on the accused is not to disprove the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt but to create doubt about the veracity of the prosecution’s case. In this case, the accused has presented sufficient evidence in defense, which casts doubt on the prosecution’s version and makes it highly doubtful and improbable.”
Choudhary referred to the judgments titled Dharampal Singh Vs State of Punjab (2010) 9 SCC 608 and Bhota Singh Vs State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 653.
Therefore, after an overall analysis of the victim’s and other witnesses’ evidence, there are significant contradictions in their statements, creating doubt about the commission of offenses. The judge stated that, considering the statements of witnesses as a whole, there is no concrete evidence on record linking the accused to the offenses mentioned in the chargesheet.
The evidence of the witnesses lacks corroboration, leaving doubt about the prosecution’s case, the judge added. He emphasised, “I am unhesitant to record that prosecution evidence cannot be said to be definite, positive, consistent, and coherent with respect to the case against the accused.”
A clear room for doubt is left in the prosecution evidence. It is important to note that it is not the duty of the accused to explain why false allegations have been made against him and why specific witnesses have testified against him. Instead, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, he said.
“Furthermore, it is well-established that strong suspicion, coincidence, and grave doubt cannot replace legal proof. Suspicion, no matter how grave, is not proof in the absence of reliable evidence. Thus, the prosecution’s case fails, and the accused is acquitted of the charges against him,” the judge concluded, adding that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Srinagar, is directed to release the accused forthwith, provided he is not lodged in any other FIR. (KDC)
