Srinagar: The J&K High Court Tuesday acquitted a man from Bugdam village in a 19-year-old rape case, ruling that inconsistencies in the prosecution’s account, limited medical evidence and the absence of forensic material left reasonable doubt about his guilt.
The High Court acquitted the alleged rapist M Ashraf Ganie in a 2007 rape case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Sections 376, 450 and 506 (rape, trespass of the house and intimidation) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed the appeal of Ganie and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Budgam.
Ganie had been convicted by the trial court on October 10, 2023, and sentenced on November 7, 2023, to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh under Section 376 RPC, five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 and one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 506, with the sentences to run concurrently.
The prosecution case related to an alleged incident of July 15, 2007, when the complainant’s adopted daughter was allegedly alone at home.
The prosecution alleged that Ganie entered the house, bolted the door, threatened the girl and committed rape on her.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 376/511 RPC, relating to rape and attempt to commit rape.
Following the medical examination, the investigating agency dropped Section 511 and proceeded with the completed offence under Section 376, besides adding Sections 450 and 506.
The High Court, however, found the change in the prosecution version significant. It noted that the initial complaint, FIR and statements recorded during investigation referred to an “attempt” to commit rape, whereas the case presented at trial alleged completed rape.
The court observed: “The distinction between an attempted act and a completed act of sexual intercourse is not an insignificant matter of detail. It goes to the nature of the principal offence itself.”
The court also examined the medical evidence and held that it did not independently connect Ganie with the alleged offence.
The doctor had found that sexual intercourse had occurred, but could not establish when it occurred or whether the appellant was the person involved.
Another important observation concerned the absence of forensic evidence. The court noted that no biological or forensic material connecting the appellant to the alleged act had been collected.
It also found uncertainty regarding the timing of the medical examination.
The court clarified that the absence of an independent eyewitness was not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution, and that the testimony of a prosecutrix can sustain a conviction where it is reliable and inspires confidence.
However, it held that the present case involved several circumstances which, when considered cumulatively, created reasonable doubt.
Significantly, the court stressed that the weakness of the defence could not compensate for deficiencies in the prosecution case, observing: “A weakness in the defence cannot supply a deficiency in the prosecution case.”
In its concluding observation, the court held: “Criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
It added that where two reasonably possible views emerge from the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.
The High Court accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted Ganie of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt, and directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
