Victim's Solitary Evidence In Sexual Offences Not Sufficient For Conviction If Marred With Inconsistencies: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

While setting aside the conviction order passed by the trial court in a rape and abduction case, the Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that the fact that Prosecutrix was aware of the place where she was kept after abduction and raped but never identified that place during the investigation assumes significance as material contradiction. In view of such contradiction, Court observed it cannot be said that her evidence is of sterling quality, which can be relied upon for convicting the appellants. The evidence led by the prosecution is not convincing, cogent that may result in conviction of the appellants, it added.A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal further observed that the statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded, it said.In this case the prosecutrix alleged that she was abducted and rape was committed upon her by accused persons Abdul Gani Akhnoor and Noor Mohd. Bhat. The trial court on the basis of the evidence relied by prosecuton convicted the accused persons for rape, Abduction and wrongful confinement. Appellant argued that there is no cogent evidence to prove the allegations and that Prosecutrix's statements are contradictory which taken on the face of it are not sufficient to convict the accused. It was further argued that the place where Prosecutrix was allegedly raped was neither identified by her nor was such information disclosed to the investigation agency. Respondent argued that trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly found the accused guilty of the aforesaid offence beyond reasonable doubt. It was further contended that victims statement was sufficient to seek conviction of the accused. Court said that there was no evidence besides the testimony of Prosecutrix that can establish the factum of abduction and rape. The evidence of related witnesses i.e., the mother, father, and husband, was based on the information provided by the prosecutrix herself. Therefore, the court is left with only the statement of the prosecutrix which must be is of 'sterling quality' in order to bring home the charges of rape and abduction. While analyzing her statement court noted that prosecutrix had give an impression that she was blindfolded when she was taken to the place. However, during the cross examination It become clear that she was aware of the place where she was kept during the time of her abduction, the fact of which was not conveyed to the investigation agency. Further in her FIR, she had stated that she had suffered injuries on her body, but this claim is negated by the medical certificate which reveals no marks of violence were found on her body. These together with other inconsistencies causes doubt on the veracity of prosecution's case, Court said.The court referred to Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi (2012) in which the Supreme Court has observed that “…The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness…”The High Court therefore held that the conviction passed by the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and acquitted the appellants.Appearance: Adv. S.R. Hussain ,Adv. Z.A. QureshiWith Adv. Moneesha for Appellant Adv. Jahangeer Ah. Dar For Respondent. Case Title: Abdul Gani Akhnoor vs State of J&K, 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Victim's Solitary Evidence In Sexual Offences Not Sufficient For Conviction If Marred With Inconsistencies: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Aleem Syeed

Tags