Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir): The courtroom was filled with a palpable sense of anticipation as Justice Sanjay Dhar of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh delivered a landmark verdict. Six years after Naresh Kumar was convicted of rape, the court overturned the conviction, highlighting critical inconsistencies and improbabilities in the victim's testimony that undermined its reliability. Kumar, a resident of Kathua district of Jammu and Kashmir, is currently lodged at District Jail Kathua.
The case began in February 2018 when the father of the prosecutrix reported his daughter missing. The girl, then around 15-16 years old, was found and medically examined, with allegations surfacing that Kumar had taken her to Rajasthan and raped her multiple times before she was rescued by her brother.
Kumar was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, on charges under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), and 343 (wrongful confinement) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). He was sentenced to 18 years in prison and fined a total of Rs 16,000. However, significant discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s statements soon came to light.
During the trial, the prosecutrix's testimony under Section 164-A CrPC suggested she had traveled with Kumar voluntarily, contradicting her later claims of abduction and drugging. Advocates Jagpaul Singh and Sourav Mahajan, representing Kumar, argued these inconsistencies rendered her account unreliable.
Deputy Advocate General Dewaker Sharma, leading the prosecution, insisted that the prosecutrix's testimony alone was sufficient for conviction and did not require corroboration. Yet, the court found the prosecution's case relied heavily on her testimony, supplemented by medical reports and the alleged recovery from Kumar's custody. Notably, medical evidence showed no signs of recent sexual intercourse or spermatozoa, and the supposed recovery lacked credible support.
Justice Dhar’s observations were pointed. "The statement of the prosecutrix cannot be treated as one of sterling quality due to contradictions on vital aspects and inherent improbabilities, making it highly hazardous to rely upon," he noted, underscoring the need for the victim's testimony to be credible and consistent.
Further examination revealed significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, including differing accounts of her state during the alleged abduction and travel. These inconsistencies, along with an unexplained four-month period, severely weakened the reliability of her testimony. Justice Dhar emphasized, "The court must ensure there is no doubt regarding the occurrence, the individuals involved, and the sequence of events. The prosecutrix's version must align with other witnesses and supporting material."
In concluding that the prosecutrix's testimony did not meet the standard of a "sterling witness," Justice Dhar criticized the trial court for failing to rigorously test her testimony against established principles of evidence. "The trial court's findings are perverse, based on no evidence and flawed reasoning. They deserve to be set aside," he stated.
Consequently, the High Court set aside Kumar's conviction and sentence, ordering his immediate release. As the ruling was read, a sense of relief spread through Kumar's family, marking the end of a six-year long legal battle.
