Rape conviction can be based on victim's solitary statement but such statement must be unblemished: J&K High Court

The conviction of an accused in a rape case can be based on the solitary statement of the rape victim but such a statement should be unblemished and of sterling quality, held the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently [State of J&K v. Feroz Ahmad Najar & Anr.]..Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observation while upholding the acquittal of men against whom a rape case was filed by a woman in 2006."On the solitary statement of a victim of rape, conviction of an accused can be based but it is equally true that such statement should be unblemished and of sterling quality," the Court said..The High Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by a Srinagar trial court in 2017.By way of that judgment, the accused were acquitted of offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), 343 (wrongful confinement for three or more days), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 109 (abetment) of the Ranbir Penal Code.A first information report (FIR) had been registered against them at the Rainawari Police Station in Srinagar in 2006. .As per the prosecution, the father of the victim lodged a missing person complaint alleging that his daughter (prosecutrix) had gone to her school but she did not return on December 16, 2005.The police launched a search of the prosecutrix and ultimately they succeeded in finding her at Central Jail in Jammu.In a statement, the girl narrated that the accused men, along with a girl named Shazia, had enticed her to go with them to Jaipur, where she was allegedly raped. On the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, a criminal case was filed against the accused. .The accused, however, claimed that the father of the prosecutrix had lodged a false case against them after an altercation between them. The accused alleged that the father had purchased a scooter from them but not paid the whole of the sale consideration despite repeated demands. Such demands and ensuing altercations led to the filing of the false case, the accused argued. They also alleged that the prosecutrix was having an affair with someone else at the time, which had led to her running away from home to elope. .The trial court acquitted the accused on finding that the statements of the prosecutrix were not trustworthy and that her conduct was not unblemished. .Pertinently, the trial court found that the version of events narrated by the prosecutrix during the trial was entirely different from the version of events mentioned in the chargesheet. As such, the trial court acquitted the accused on January 1, 2017..The government challenged the trial court verdict before the High Court..Before the High Court, it was contended that a conviction can be recorded on the basis of a solitary statement of a victim of rape without any corroboration. On the other hand, the trial court had discarded the victim's statement on flimsy grounds, the government argued..However, the High Court rejected these contentions on finding that there were major contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix. "From the analysis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during trial of the case and the statement of the Investigating officer recorded during trial of the case, it is clear that there are major contradictions in her statements on the essential aspect of the case. These contradictions between the version of occurrence given in statement of the prosecutrix under section 161 of CrPC and her statement recorded during trial of the case have been proved during trial of the case," the High Court held..The statement of the prosecutrix is unworthy of credit and the accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of her statement, the Court concluded.."The view taken by the trial court in acquitting the respondents/accused and in holding that the statement of the prosecutrix is unworthy of credit does not deserve to be interfered with by this court while exercising appellate jurisdiction," the High Court observed..Therefore, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused. .Government Advocate Sajad Ashraf appeared on behalf of the J&K government, while advocate Abu Owais Pandit appeared on behalf of the accused..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.