SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 2007 kidnapping and rape case, holding that the prosecutrix was above the then applicable age of consent and that the evidence on record established that she had accompanied the accused “out of her own free will and volition”.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on July 31, 2026, dismissed two appeals, one filed by the State and the other by the complainant, challenging the December 31, 2012 judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora, which had acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The State was represented by Government Advocate Jagingeer Dar, while the complainant was represented by advocate Mir Naveed Gul.
The case arose from a report lodged by the complainant, Abdul Majeed Beigh, at Police Station Bandipora on July 26, 2007. He alleged that his daughter had left home on June 22, 2007, but failed to return, and that she had been kidnapped by the accused with the intention of committing sexual intercourse with her.
An FIR was registered under Section 363 RPC and, during investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the accused. Following her medical examination, the investigating agency also invoked Section 376 RPC.
According to her statement recorded during investigation, the prosecutrix had met the accused at Gulshan Chowk, Bandipora, while she was on her way to the town. She alleged that the accused enticed her, took her to an unknown place and subsequently to different locations, where he allegedly committed rape upon her. She also alleged that the accused threatened to kill her whenever she tried to raise an alarm.
The prosecution subsequently filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 363 and 376 RPC. Charges were framed against the accused on August 1, 2008. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, while the accused examined two defence witnesses.
The accused, in his statement under Section 342 of the JK Criminal Procedure Code, denied kidnapping the prosecutrix and claimed that she had accompanied him voluntarily. He further stated that she had married him and stayed with him as his wife, relying on a marriage agreement executed between them.
The trial court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the prosecutrix had voluntarily joined the accused and had entered into wedlock with him. It consequently held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him.
The State and complainant challenged the acquittal before the High Court, arguing, among other things, that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the occurrence and that her consent was therefore immaterial. They also argued that she had supported the prosecution case in her testimony.
The High Court, however, noted that the alleged occurrence took place in June 2007, when the age of consent under Section 376 RPC was 16 years. The court observed that the age was raised to 18 only through the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013, which came into force on March 22, 2014.
The court found that the prosecution evidence itself established that the prosecutrix had crossed the age of 16 at the relevant time. Her registration card issued by the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education recorded her date of birth as September 7, 1989. Her mother also stated in cross-examination that the prosecutrix was born on the same date. A doctor who examined her had assessed her approximate age as 18 years or more.
“Thus, the material placed on record by the prosecution itself goes on to show that the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence,” Justice Dhar observed, adding that she had therefore “attained the age of consent” under the law applicable at the time.
The court then examined whether the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the accused or had been forcibly taken away and subjected to sexual intercourse under threat or coercion.
The High Court noted that the prosecutrix claimed during her examination-in-chief that she had been forcibly kidnapped and raped inside a shop, where she allegedly remained with the accused for one month and seven days. However, in cross-examination, she stated that the accused would leave the shop during the daytime while she remained there and that she did not raise an alarm.
The court also noted that she had travelled in a passenger vehicle carrying other persons and that the vehicle was checked by police at a naka. According to the judgment, she neither raised an alarm nor informed anyone about her alleged kidnapping or rape on that occasion.
“From the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, the only inference that can be drawn is that she had accompanied the accused out of her own will and volition,” the court held.
Justice Dhar further observed that her conduct, including remaining in the shop for over a month while the accused went out during the daytime, and failing to raise an alarm when opportunities arose, rendered her allegation of forcible kidnapping and sexual assault doubtful.
The accused had also relied upon a marriage agreement, a photocopy of which was placed on record. Although the prosecutrix denied her signatures on the document, defence witness Bashir Ahmad Mir, who was stated to be a witness to the agreement, testified that she had executed it before the Sub-Registrar, Kargil.
The High Court held that the defence evidence, coupled with the marriage agreement, “probablises the defence of the accused that he had entered into a wedlock with the prosecutrix.”
Before examining the evidence, the High Court also considered the legal limitations governing appeals against acquittal. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoundar v. State of Karnataka, the court noted that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and that an appellate court should not interfere where the view taken by the trial court is a possible one.
The High Court concluded that the trial court had properly analysed and appreciated the evidence and that its conclusion was “irresistible having regard to the nature of evidence on record.”
“Both the appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed accordingly,” the court ordered.
The judgment was reserved on July 23, 2026, and pronounced at Srinagar on July 31, 2026. It has been marked reportable.
