Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 66 (JK)

State of Jammu And Kashmir v. Mohd. Jabbar

2017-02-14

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The State seeks leave and condonation of 23 days' delay for filing appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal dated 27.02.2015, whereby learned trial court has acquitted the respondent of offences under sections 363, 376 RPC after his trial arising in FIR No. 73/2006 of Police Station Manjakot. 2. Heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. Rahul Raina, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. Prosecution case as set out before the learned trial court, precisely, is that on 30.10.2006 at 1PM the respondent kidnapped the daughter of PW Mohd. Rehman when she was on her way back to Home from her School. He committed repeated sexual intercourse with her. It came in the investigation that the date of birth of the girl was 1.1.1990 and that respondent had committed sexual intercourse with her prior to her abduction on 30.10.2006 also. 4. The impugned judgment would show that at trial of the case the prosecution, besides producing the victim, examined her father PW Mohd. Rehman and six other witnesses. The learned trial court after appraising and analyzing the evidence acquitted the respondent holding that the story projected by the victim (girl) was improbable. 5. We, with the assistance of learned Additional Advocate General, have carefully read the impugned judgment, which contains sufficient resume of the evidence led by the prosecution in the trial court and accorded consideration to the grounds on which the impugned judgment is assailed in this appeal. We have noticed that in the cross-examination the girl has stated that 'Nikah' between her and the respondent was performed by the police. She has also stated that the marriage between her and the respondent could not be contracted as the respondent is a Guzar and she is a Dharmal and her parents were unhappy and they called her back through police. We have noticed also that she (girl) in her examination-in-chief has stated that the respondent had sexual intercourse with her prior to the occurrence but did not have sexual intercourse with her on the day of occurrence. 6. We have noticed also that she (girl) in her examination-in-chief has stated that the respondent had sexual intercourse with her prior to the occurrence but did not have sexual intercourse with her on the day of occurrence. 6. This being an appeal against acquittal, when the presumption of innocence, which every person carries as a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, is reinforced and doubled by the acquittal secured from the trial court, this Court can interfere with the acquittal only if there are compelling reasons, that is, the reasoning given by the trial court is found not only erroneous, but unreasonable and perverse and acquittal is not justified. 7. Acquittal in this case is assailed on the ground that impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts, learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and that accused has committed heinous crime and strict view was required to be taken by the trial court. 8. It is noticed that no specific error said to have been committed by the learned trial court has been pointed out nor the learned Additional Advocate General could so demonstrated before us today. 9. We, on careful reading of the judgment are unable to find any error, muchless perversity, in the impugned judgment calling interference by this court. We, therefore, are not pursuaded to take a different view that taken by the learned trial court in the face of the evidence led by the prosecution. 10. Viewed thus, no sufficient ground for granting leave to file appeal has been found and the application, therefore is, dismissed. 11. Consequently, application for condonation of delay and proposed appeal are also dismissed.