Victim Accompanied Accused For A Month Without Seeking Help: J&K&L High Court Upholds Acquittal In Kidnapping, Rape Case

Holding that the view taken by the trial court was a plausible one based on the evidence on record, the Court dismissed appeals filed by both the State and the complainant challenging the acquittal.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the material on record established that the prosecutrix had attained the age of consent under the law prevailing at the time of the incident in 2007 and that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she had been forcibly kidnapped or subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse.

The Court observed that "From the foregoing analysis of the evidence on record, it can safely be concluded that the prosecutrix had accompanied the accused out of her own free will and volition and it is not a case of kidnapping and rape, as has been alleged by the prosecution."

According to the prosecution, the complainant lodged an FIR in July 2007 alleging that his daughter had left home the previous month and had been kidnapped by the respondent with the intention of committing sexual intercourse.

During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the accused, medically examined, and an offence under Section 376 RPC was added to the FIR. In her statement, she alleged that the accused had enticed her, taken her to different places and repeatedly raped her while threatening to kill her if she raised an alarm.

Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 363 and 376 RPC. The accused denied the allegations, maintaining that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him, married him of her own free will and executed a marriage agreement before the competent authority.

The trial court, after examining the prosecution and defence evidence, acquitted the accused, prompting separate appeals by the State and the complainant before the High Court.

Court's Observations:

Before examining the evidence, the High Court reiterated the principles governing appeals against acquittal. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, the Court observed that although an appellate court possesses full power to reappreciate evidence, interference with an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's findings are perverse or no reasonable view could have been taken on the evidence available. The Court also reiterated that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence available to an accused.

The Court further noted that the alleged occurrence took place in June 2007, when the age of consent under Section 376 RPC in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir was 16 years, and not 18 years. Examining the school records, the testimony of the prosecutrix's mother and the medical evidence, the Court found that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age at the relevant time and had, therefore, attained the age of consent under the law then in force.

Justice Dhar then undertook a detailed analysis of the prosecutrix's own testimony. The Court noted that although she alleged forcible kidnapping and rape in her examination-in-chief, her cross-examination revealed that she remained with the accused for one month and seven days, stayed alone in a shop during the day while the accused went out, changed clothes, took meals and never attempted to escape despite being left unattended. She also admitted travelling in a passenger vehicle carrying other passengers, passing through a police naka where the vehicle was checked, yet she neither raised an alarm nor disclosed her alleged kidnapping to anyone.

Analysing this conduct, the Court observed,

"The prosecutrix did not make any effort to set herself free from the clutches of the accused. From this conduct of the prosecutrix, it can safely be inferred that she was staying in the company of the accused out of her free will and volition."

The Court further observed,

"Even on that occasion, she neither raised any alarm nor narrated anything about her alleged kidnapping or rape. This also goes on to show that her statement, that she was forcibly kidnapped by the accused and thereafter subjected to sexual assault, is doubtful and hence unreliable."

The Court also took note of the defence evidence, including a registered marriage agreement and the testimony of a defence witness who stated that the prosecutrix had executed the agreement before the Sub-Registrar at Kargil. Although the prosecutrix denied her signatures on the document, the Court held that the defence evidence probabilised the accused's case that the parties had entered into a marriage.

Consequently, the Court concluded,

"From the foregoing analysis of the evidence on record, it can safely be concluded that the prosecutrix had accompanied the accused out of her own free will and volition and it is not a case of kidnapping and rape, as has been alleged by the prosecution."

Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, Justice Dhar held that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence and adopted a view that was reasonably possible on the record. In such circumstances, appellate interference was unwarranted, the court concluded.

Case Title: State of J&K v. Mohammad Ramzan Mir (connected with Abdul Majeed Beigh v. Mohammad Ramzan Mir & Anr.)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click here to read/download the Judgment.