In a significant legal development, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored the necessity for direct or circumstantial evidence connecting an accused to a crime, particularly in cases of sexual assault. The court's ruling emphasizes that mere medical evidence confirming sexual intercourse is insufficient to establish guilt under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or rape charges.
Case Background
The case involved Basit Bashir, who was accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting two minor girls. The allegations stemmed from an FIR filed by the father of a 14-year-old girl, who reported his daughter missing. The complainant alleged that his daughter and her friend had left home and were later found to have been sexually assaulted. The police investigation accused Bashir of enticing the girls into his vehicle, kidnapping them, and committing penetrative sexual assault under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The Special Judge (POCSO Court) framed charges against Bashir in March 2022, prompting him to challenge the order before the High Court. He argued that the prosecution had no evidence linking him to the alleged offences.
Court's Examination
Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the case, scrutinized the statements of the two minor girls recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. Both victims stated they had voluntarily left home to visit a market and later accepted a lift from the accused due to the unavailability of transport. They explicitly denied any coercion or inducement by Bashir. The court noted:
“The girls boarded the vehicle of their own volition, uninfluenced by any promise or allurement from the petitioner. Their statements contradict the prosecution's claim of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC."
Furthermore, the family members' testimonies also failed to support the kidnapping charge, as they admitted the girls had left home willingly.
Medical Evidence and Its Limitations
While medical reports confirmed the victims had engaged in sexual intercourse, the court emphasized that mere medical opinion, without corroborative evidence, cannot establish the guilt of the accused. The girls' statements under Section 164 CrPC did not allege sexual assault by Bashir, and no forensic evidence (e.g., DNA or spermatozoa traces) linked him to the crime.
The court highlighted that medical experts can only certify evidence of recent sexual activity but cannot opine on whether rape has been committed. This distinction is crucial in ensuring that convictions are based on comprehensive and corroborated evidence.
Legal Precedents
The court's decision aligns with established legal principles that require direct or circumstantial evidence to connect an accused to a crime. In the case of Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of J&K, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court emphasized that conviction can solely be based on circumstantial evidence if it satisfies certain tests, including the establishment of all circumstances forming a chain of evidence and the exclusion of every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Similarly, in State of J. & K. v. Ajit Raj Alias Kaka, the court noted that the prosecution failed to match the blood group found on the victim's clothing with that of the accused, highlighting the necessity for thorough forensic analysis in sexual assault cases.
Conclusion
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court's ruling serves as a critical reminder of the standards required for convicting individuals in sexual assault cases. It underscores the importance of direct or circumstantial evidence that directly links the accused to the crime, ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and corroborated information. This approach not only upholds the principles of justice but also protects the rights of individuals against wrongful convictions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.