Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 30: Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Jammu Khalil Choudhary has acquitted one person who was booked for allegedly committing the rape with a 17 year old girl.
The case FIR No.299 of 2018 was registered at Gandhi Nagar Police Station against Arif Choudhary, son of Shah Din of Gujjar Nagar for the commission of offence under Section 376 RPC.
After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was presented before the court of Special Excise Mobile Magistrate Jammu on 26.02.2019 and on the same day the case was committed to the court of Principal Session Judge Jammu.
The court of Principal Session Judge Jammu transferred the case to the court of 3rd Additional Session Judge Jammu on 05.03.2019. Thereafter, creation of Fast Track Court, the challan was transmitted on 11.05.2021.
During the course of trial the accused was charged on 14.03.2019 for the commission of offence under Section 376 RPC. However, the accused denied the guilt and claimed to be tried.
The Presiding Officer Fast Track Court found that the discrepancies and the contradiction appearing in the evidence of the prosecution are not normal but material discrepancies which have the effect of eroding the credibility of the prosecution case.
“On apparent perusal of the testimonies of most material witnesses of prosecution, the victim of offence who herself is the informant, mother, uncle, Dr Nishu Priya and Investigation Officer, it is impractically cleared that statements of all the witnesses are materially different from the case put up by prosecution”, the court said, adding “victim of offence is the star witness in this case, she being privy to the circumstances of occurrence. The offence relating to commission of sexual intercourse is such which is not committed in open. In view of secret nature of the offence, it is only the accused and the victim who can tell best about the actual circumstances in which occurrence took place”.
“I am aware that if there are no material contradictions or discrepancies in the testimony of witness/witnesses, his/her evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies or exaggerations. However, distinction is required to be made between the material contradictions or discrepancies and the normal/natural contradictions/discrepancies”, the court said, adding “while minor contradictions do not corrode the credibility of the prosecution case, but material contradiction do so”.
“Over all analysis of the evidence of prosecutrix, IO as well as the doctor witness, with regard to committing of sexual intercourse by the accused there are major contradictions in their statements which creates doubt with regard to committing of rape by the accused”, the court said, adding “there is no concrete evidence on record connecting the accused with the commission of offence”.
With these observations, the court dismissed the prosecution case and acquitted the accused of the charge leveled against him.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel