- (1.) THE appellant was convicted by Addl. Sessions Judge. Srinagar. On 17 -5 -1976 for offences under sections 363 R. P. C. He was sentenced to undergo rigurous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - for the offence u/s 363 R. P. C. and to undergo rigurous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - for the offence under sec. 376 R. P. C. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one and 2 months, on the two counts, respectively. Through the medium of this appeal, he has challenged his conviction and sentence.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the appellant abducted and committed rape on Mst. Maryam, than a minor girl of about 15 years. The prosecution story in a nut -shall is that the appellant, who acted as a marriage broker, played a confidence trick on the prosecutrix and her family members, including Noor Mohd Beg. the father of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that the appellant used to visit their house in connection with the marriage of the prosecutrixs brother and there he tried to perform some so 013 miracles which he attributed to his saintly qualities and to the fact that he had "cover powered the demons" He created an impression on the family that he could cure people suffering from different ailments and grant their wishes through his spiritual power. The family of the prosecutrix was taken in completely by the appellant and they began to trust him and respect him. On November 4. 1967, the psosecutrix complained of suffering from some stomachache and discomfort. The appellant was in their house at that tine. He was approached and he took upon himself to curve her of the ailment, On his asking, the prosecutrix was made to accompany him to a mosque to offer prayers, Instead of returning with the prosecutrix to her house after the prayers, it is alleged, that the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix and took her to different places, where he committed rape on her The father and other relatives of the prosecutrix searched for her in vain. A report about the missing of the prosecutrix and the fact that she had been taken away by the appellant was lodged by her father, Noor Mohd, with the police on 6th of November. 1967 and that made the police swing into action. On 8th of November, 1967, the prosecutrix and the appellant were apprehended near a graveyard at Srinagar by the Police, who was informed of their presence near the grave yard by the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. After investigation, the police submitted the challan and the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed earlier.
(3.) WITH a view to connect the appellant with the crime, the prosecution examined besides the prosecutrix, her father Noor Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, Ghulam Qadir Gujri, Ali Mohd, Ghulam Nabi Sofi Ghulam Rasool Constable, Dr. Vijay Kaul. Radiologist Mohan Lal and the Investigating officer Shri Radha Krishan. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations against him in his statement recorded under sec. 342 Cr. P. C. and preduced Amir -ud -Din Baba, Pir Mohi -ud -Din, Ghulam Mohd, Abdul Gani, Ghulam Nabi Mir, Ghulam Mohd. Sheikh and Maqbool Dar in his defence. In a case of this type, utmost importance is to be attached to the statement of the prosecutrix and the Medical evidence, other evidence, being only of corroborative nature, since in a case of rape one can hardly find an eye witness. Once the court is satisfied that the version given by the prosecutrix is trust worthy and free of blemish and finds support from the medical evidence, the court need look for no other corroboration to record conviction, Of course the testimony of the prosecutrix has to be weighed with caution for a charge of rape can be easily made out, if her testimony inspires confidence, conviction can be based on her testimony supported by the medical evidence alone. It is in this background that I proceed to deal with this appeal.;