Court Says Prosecution Failed to Establish Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Questions Delayed Complaint and One-Sided Investigation
JAMMU, AUGUST 28: The Fast Track Court in Jammu has acquitted three accused in a long-pending case involving allegations of rape, dowry harassment and abetment, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh pronounced the judgment on August 24, 2026, after examining the evidence and circumstances presented during the trial.
The case stemmed from allegations made by a woman against her husband, brother-in-law and parents-in-law. She had alleged harassment over a demand for a car as dowry and accused her brother-in-law of sexually assaulting her on three occasions.
After assessing the prosecution evidence, the Court found several material contradictions and inconsistencies that, according to the judgment, raised serious doubts about the prosecution version.
Court Finds Major Contradiction in Timeline of Alleged Assaults
One of the key issues highlighted by the Court concerned the timing of the alleged incidents. The prosecutrix stated that she had left her matrimonial home in November 2015 and returned only following a compromise in December 2016.
However, the alleged incidents of sexual assault were stated to have taken place in August, October and November 2016 at the matrimonial home.
The Court observed that the contradiction regarding the prosecutrix’s presence at the matrimonial residence during the relevant period went to the root of the prosecution case.
Delay in Approaching Magistrate Also Questioned
The Court also examined the delay of around five months and 20 days between the first alleged incident of rape and the prosecutrix approaching the Magistrate.
The judgment noted that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained, adding to the doubts surrounding the prosecution case.
The Court further pointed to inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony. During the proceedings, she admitted that she had not raised an alarm during the alleged assaults and had not informed neighbours, despite acknowledging that houses were located nearby.
Matrimonial Dispute Became Key Aspect of Court’s Assessment
The Court also considered the prosecutrix’s admission during cross-examination that she wanted a divorce from her husband and was unwilling to live with him even if he arranged a separate residence for her.
Another significant circumstance noted by the Court was the timing of the complaint. The application seeking registration of the case was filed a day after the prosecutrix received summons in a matrimonial petition filed by her husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
According to the Court, these circumstances created substantial doubt regarding the prosecution’s version of events.
Relatives’ Statements Failed to Provide Sufficient Corroboration
The evidence given by the prosecutrix’s father and paternal aunt was also found insufficient to independently support the allegations.
The Court noted contradictions in their statements concerning alleged attempts to burn the prosecutrix and the circumstances surrounding the aunt’s claimed presence at the matrimonial home.
Court Criticises Investigation as “One-Sided” and “Perfunctory”
The Court also raised serious concerns over the manner in which the case was investigated.
It observed that the investigating officers had failed to collect adequate independent material to corroborate the allegations. The investigation did not sufficiently examine neighbours or obtain call-detail records of the mobile phones allegedly used by the prosecutrix.
Describing the investigation as “one-sided” and “perfunctory,” the Court observed that the investigating agency had largely relied on the prosecutrix’s statement without carrying out a deeper examination of the allegations or the underlying matrimonial dispute.
Medical Evidence Found to Have Limited Value
The Court also held that the medical evidence did not substantially advance the prosecution case.
It observed that the potency test only established the physical capacity of an accused and, by itself, could not be treated as incriminating evidence. The Court also found the medical evidence to have limited probative value in view of the substantial delay involved.
Court Says Evidence Insufficient for Conviction
After considering the entire record, the Fast Track Court concluded that the prosecution evidence was “replete with inherent absurdities” and insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Accordingly, the Court acquitted Vinod Kumar, Pushpa Devi and Raj Kumar of the charges.
Proceedings against another accused had already abated following his death during the pendency of the trial.
Following the acquittal, the three accused were discharged from their bail and surety bonds.(KNC)
