An acquittal cannot be disturbed where the trial court’s view is reasonably supported by evidence.

On 30.12.2004, Mohd. Ameen reported that his sister, the prosecutrix, had been abducted on 28.12.2004 from the Surankote/Samote market by Showket Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed and others, allegedly to compel her marriage with Showket Hussain. FIR No. 198/2004 was registered under Sections 366/109 RPC. The prosecutrix was subsequently recovered from Rajouri Bus Stand, medically examined, and her statement was recorded.

The investigation culminated in a charge-sheet against the respondents under Sections 366, 376 and 109 RPC, while two other accused were given up for lack of evidence.

Showket Hussain was charged under Sections 366/376 RPC, and respondents 2–4 under Sections 366/109 RPC. After examining 11 prosecution witnesses, the Sessions Court, Poonch, acquitted all the accused by judgment dated 30.03.2007.

The State preferred the present acquittal appeal after obtaining sanction to appeal.

Whether the prosecution evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents abducted or induced the prosecutrix for the purpose of compelling her marriage, attracting Sections 366/109 RPC.

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the allegation of rape against respondent Showket Hussain under Section 376 RPC.

Whether the High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in an acquittal appeal, should interfere with the trial court’s judgment where the view adopted by it is a reasonable and legally sustainable view of the evidence.

The Court considered Sections 366, 376 and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code, concerning kidnapping or abduction for compelled marriage or illicit intercourse, rape, and abetment, respectively.

It applied the principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if wholly reliable and confidence-inspiring, may by itself sustain a conviction; however, where material inconsistencies and surrounding circumstances create reasonable doubt, conviction cannot follow.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence but should not interfere merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the acquittal is manifestly erroneous, perverse, or contrary to the evidence.

The Court relied on Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134; Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629; and Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124.

The Court held that the prosecution case principally depended upon the prosecutrix because the informant and other witnesses had no personal knowledge of the alleged abduction.

Her statements contained inconsistencies concerning the place where she was intercepted, the distance from the market, the alleged possession and snatching of ₹30,000 and gold ornaments, and the sequence of events in Rajouri.

The FIR was lodged two days after the alleged occurrence, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Court also found the prosecution narrative regarding the journey to Rajouri, the stay in the hotel, the alleged rape, and the prosecutrix’s subsequent presence alone at the bus stand insufficiently reliable in the circumstances of the case.

These deficiencies created reasonable doubt and supported the trial court’s assessment that the prosecutrix may have accompanied Showket voluntarily.

Since the trial court’s view was a possible and reasonable appreciation of the evidence, the restrictive standard governing appeals against acquittal did not permit appellate interference.

The trial court’s acquittal was found to be reasoned, lawful, and based on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence; consequently, the acquittal appeal was dismissed and the judgment dated 30.03.2007 was upheld.

The respondents’ bail/personal bonds furnished during the pendency of the appeal were discharged, and the record was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.