Inconsistencies and Absence of Forensic Proof: JK High Court Set Aside Conviction for Kidnapping and Gang Rape

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Mohammad Aris and Mohammad Shakeel v. State of Jammu & Kashmir overturned the conviction of two appellants for kidnapping under Section 363 RPC and gang rape under Section 376D RPC. The appellants, who were sentenced to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment, successfully challenged the trial court’s judgment on the grounds of contradictory witness testimonies, lack of medical and forensic evidence, and failure to prove the minority of the prosecutrix.

Conflicting Prosecution Versions and Lack of Evidence Undermines Conviction

The court found significant contradictions in the prosecution’s case, including varying versions of the alleged incident and discrepancies in witness statements. The absence of forensic evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case, leading the court to conclude that the guilt of the appellants was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on July 5, 2016, by the brother of the prosecutrix (PW-3), who alleged that the appellants had kidnapped and raped his sister. According to the complaint, the appellants drugged the complainant and his mother by serving them contaminated buttermilk (lassi), after which they kidnapped the prosecutrix and took her to their home where she was sexually assaulted.

The trial court convicted the appellants of kidnapping and gang rape, sentencing them to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellants appealed, arguing that there were serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the medical evidence contradicted the allegations of rape, and the prosecution had failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor.

Contradictory Testimonies and Inconsistent Versions of the Incident: The court found multiple versions of the incident, with significant discrepancies between the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecutrix gave conflicting accounts of how she was kidnapped and assaulted, and the complainant, PW-3, did not testify during the trial.

“There are so many missing links in the prosecution version and serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which make the prosecution case highly improbable and most likely concocted.” [Para 21]

Failure to Prove Minority of the Prosecutrix: A key element in the kidnapping charge was the minority of the prosecutrix. However, the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence to establish her age. The court noted that the school certificate produced by the prosecution was not properly authenticated, and no effort was made to obtain a matriculation certificate or call a school witness to verify her age.

“There is no evidence on record to prove that the prosecutrix, at the time of alleged kidnapping, was a minor... It is not thus understandable as to how and on what basis the trial Court has declared and treated the prosecutrix as minor.” [Para 16]

Medical Evidence Contradicts Allegation of Rape: The medical examination conducted shortly after the alleged incident revealed no signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries on the prosecutrix’s body. This medical opinion significantly undermined the prosecution’s case, as the absence of injuries or forensic evidence raised doubts about the occurrence of rape.

“The medical opinion on record, substantiated by the statement of Dr. Shazia Anjum, clearly ruled out any evidence of penetration or recent sexual intercourse.” [Para 17]

Absence of Forensic Evidence: Despite seizing clothing and a bed sheet containing alleged semen stains, the prosecution failed to present the forensic report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The court held that this omission seriously weakened the prosecution’s case.

“Interestingly, the prosecution did not make any effort to bring on record the opinion of the Scientific Officer of the FSL or the result of the chemical examination.” [Para 23]

The court found the trial court’s reliance on the prosecution’s evidence to be misplaced, given the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the case. It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the conviction was based on weak and unreliable evidence.

Contradictory Versions and Testimonies: The court noted that the prosecution presented multiple, conflicting versions of the incident, with key witnesses providing inconsistent statements that severely weakened the case.

Medical and Forensic Gaps: The absence of medical and forensic evidence was critical. The medical examination contradicted the claim of rape, and the failure to present forensic analysis of the seized items left significant gaps in the prosecution’s case.

Failure to Prove Age: The prosecution’s failure to provide conclusive evidence of the prosecutrix’s minority further undermined the kidnapping charge.

"The cumulative effect of the contradictions and discrepancies makes it abundantly clear that it is not safe to convict the appellants based on the evidence on record." [Para 25]

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s conviction, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants. The judgment underscored the importance of consistency in witness testimonies and the need for concrete medical and forensic evidence in cases involving serious charges like kidnapping and rape.

Date of Decision: 18/09/2024

Mohammad Aris and Mohammad Shakeel v. State of Jammu & Kashmir