The Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a man’s appeal challenging his conviction by a lower court in a minor’s sexual abuse case.
The court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar, upheld the conviction rendered on February 22 by the Additional Sessions Judge (fast track court), Kulgam.
Accused Sajad Ahmad Bhat was convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years, along with a fine of Rs 10,000. Bhat challenged the conviction and sentencing, arguing that they were based on a flawed appreciation of the evidence.
He contended that the victim’s statement before the trial court did not support the prosecution’s case, yet the trial court relied on the “uncorroborated testimony” of prosecution witnesses, which he claimed was not in accordance with the law. Bhat also argued that there were contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding crucial aspects of the case, particularly the location of the alleged incident, which were overlooked by the trial court.
The appellant further argued that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version and claimed that the investigating officer failed to record statements from other children who were allegedly with the victim before the incident, withholding vital evidence.
According to Bhat, the prosecution should be presumed to have withheld crucial evidence, and he argued that the elements of the offence under Section 376/511 RPC were not established.
The high court, however, found that evidence on record showed the appellant had molested the victim, causing minor injuries, and that semen was found on parts of the victim’s body. This evidence indicated that Bhat had nearly completed his attempt to rape the child, but was interrupted by a prosecution witness arriving just in time.
Justice Dhar stated that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and praised the trial court for its handling of the case. The high court found no merit in Bhat’s appeal and upheld the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant, currently in custody, will continue to serve the remainder of his sentence.
