Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 22: Principal Sessions Judge Kathua, M K Hanjura today discharged one Jamal Singh, who was facing the charges of kidnapping and rape, as the prosecutrix didn’t support the prosecution case.
According to the police case, on January 3, 2011, Mohan Lal, son of Chandu Ram of Haripur, Basohli, in a written complaint submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua, mentioned that his daughter, a tenth class student, was enticed away by the accused. In the complaint, he further submitted that he had lodged a report with Police Station Basohli but to his dismay no action was taken.
On the intervention of CJM, police started investigation into the case and on the completion of the investigation chargesheet for the commission of offences under Section 376/363 RPC was presented before the court.
After hearing PP Ravi Gupta for the State whereas Advocate BB Sharma for the accused, Principal Sessions Judge observed, “looking at the instant case the function of the court is to look into the material on record, accept it as true, hear the parties and if after these considerations the court finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused it has to discharge the accused after recording the reasons”.
“Testing the instant case on this touchstone it needs to be mentioned that the statement of Neena Devi, the alleged prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A CrPC is of utmost importance. The relevant excerpts of her statement that have a bearing on this case gives a vivid image of the occurrence of the event”, the Court said, adding “from her statement the complicity of the accused is not even remotely made out. On the statement of this witness what can reasonably be concluded is that she has been living happily with the accused as his wife. Not only this. The statement of the prosecutrix asserts that she has given birth to a child. She has been emphatic in stating that the accused has not kidnapped or abducted her. She has proceeded to state that the complaint of the complainant has no truth or substance in it”.
“There has been a complete volte face by the prosecutrix. She has denied any such occurrence having taken place at all. She has refused to give consent to the gynaecological examination as can be seen from the certificate of the BMO Basohli. He states her age to be 20 years. In her statement she has put her age at 19 years. She has not only opposed her father’s version but also simply smashed it in its entirety”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed discharged the accused of the offences under Section 363/376 RPC and released him on furnishing bail bonds.
Follow our WhatsApp channel