Bandipora, April 01: The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora, on Monday dismissed the appeal of a teacher convicted in sexual assault of a minor Madrassah student in 2011.
District and Sessions Judge Bandipora Mir Wajahat dismissed the appeal filed by Ishfaq Hussain Dar and upheld his conviction of three-year sentence under Section 377 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) in a case involving sexual assault of a minor student at Dar-ul-Uloom Hanfia Naidkhai in 2011.
The appeal challenged the September 29, 2018 judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), Sumbal, which had convicted Dar and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000.
The appellate court confirmed the conviction after independently reassessing the evidence and grounds raised in appeal. The court found no illegality, perversity, or misappreciation of evidence in the trial court’s findings and held that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
On sentence, the court noted that Section 377 RPC prescribed imprisonment up to ten years and a fine. It observed that the sentence of three years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 was at the lower end of the statutory range.
Since the State had not sought enhancement, the court confined itself to examining the appeal against conviction and declined to modify the sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, the court ordered that the accused, who was present in court, be taken into custody and lodged in District Jail Baramulla to serve the remaining period of his sentence after adjusting any period already undergone.
The court also directed SHO, Police Station Sumbal, to ensure execution of the sentence and submit a compliance report within fifteen days.
According to the prosecution case, FIR No. 195/2011 was registered at Police Station Sumbal on August 24, 2011, based on a written complaint lodged by the father of the minor victim. The complaint alleged that teacher at the Dar-ul-Uloom, committed sodomy upon the child.
The accused was arrested on August 24, 2011, and the charge sheet was filed before the JMIC, Sumbal. Charges under Section 377 RPC were framed on November 2, 2011. The trial court convicted the accused in 2018, relying primarily on the testimony of the child victim and medical evidence. The convict was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5000.
In his appeal, the accused argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, that the medical evidence was inconclusive, and that non-examination of key witnesses—including the Investigating Officer and the doctor who examined the accused—caused prejudice.
The defense also alleged false implication stemming from institutional and sectarian disputes and disciplinary action taken against the student.
The appellate court framed multiple issues for determination, including the reliability of the victim’s testimony, the evidentiary value of the medical findings, and the impact of non-examination of certain witnesses.
On the question of credibility, the court held that the testimony of the minor victim was consistent in material particulars across his statements under Sections 161 and 164-A CrPC and during trial.
It noted that minor variations regarding peripheral details, such as whether blood was cleaned with a towel or bag, did not affect the core of the prosecution case.
The court reiterated the settled legal position that conviction in sexual assault cases can rest on the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable and trustworthy. The medical officer who examined the child on August 24, 2011, testified to findings and confirmed the sodomy attempt.
The appellate court held that these findings were consistent with the prosecution version and that absence of visible external injuries did not negate the occurrence of penetration.
Addressing the non-examination of certain prosecution witnesses, who examined the accused, the court held that no specific prejudice had been demonstrated. It found that the core evidence—comprising the victim’s testimony and corroborative medical findings—remained intact and sufficient.
The defense witnesses, including members of the Dar-ul-Uloom administration, denied knowledge of the incident and alleged fabrication. However, the appellate court found material contradictions in their statements. In particular, it held that the testimony of the institution’s head, who claimed the accused was never arrested and remained on duty, was demonstrably false in light of official records showing the accused’s arrest and judicial custody in 2011.
The court also rejected the argument that the statement of the accused under Section 342 CrPC was defective, holding that no specific prejudice was shown to have resulted.
Comments are closed.