Jammu Court Acquits Man in Rape Case, Orders Probe Against Cops for ‘Tainted’ Investigation | Kashmir Life

   

SRINAGAR: A Fast Track Court in Jammu has acquitted a man accused of raping his niece, holding that the prosecution had “badly failed” to prove the charge and describing the police investigation as “fabricated, botched and concocted.”

Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court Jammu, Amarjeet Singh Langeh, delivered the judgment on May 29, 2026, in a case arising out of FIR No. 90/2022 registered at Police Station RS Pura under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court acquitted the accused Subash Chopra, a resident of Ward No. 2, R.S Pura, Jammu, and ordered a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer and the then Station House Officer of Police Station RS Pura. The court also directed the initiation of proceedings under Section 182 RPC against the prosecutrix for allegedly lodging a false complaint.

The prosecution case was that the complainant, a 20-year-old college student whose identity has been withheld, approached Police Station RS Pura on May 14, 2022 alleging that her uncle had entered her room between midnight and 2 am and raped her after physically assaulting her.

Following the complaint, police registered the FIR and arrested the accused on May 15, 2022. The challan was later presented before the court after investigation.

During trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her mother, brother, two NGO workers, doctors and the investigating officer.

The prosecution was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra, while the accused appeared through Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel Anil Sharma.

The court, however, found major inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution story.

In a strongly worded judgment running into several pages, the court observed that the allegations did not inspire confidence and that the conduct of the prosecutrix, her family members and the investigation raised “serious doubt on the truthfulness of prosecution case.”

The court noted that the prosecutrix had alleged that the accused remained in her room for 30 to 45 minutes and raped her twice. Yet, no one in the joint family household heard any cries or alarm despite several relatives living in the same building.

“It is highly improbable that a 20-year-old niece – when confronted by her real uncle in the middle of the night, would remain completely silent and inert in a brutal sexual assault,” the court observed.

The judge further remarked that the “complete absence of spontaneous out-cry” cast doubt on whether the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged.

The court also questioned the conduct of the prosecutrix after the alleged incident, observing that instead of approaching her family immediately, she contacted her brother who was outside Jammu and thereafter involved two women associated with an NGO.

The judgment records that the prosecutrix stayed at a One Stop Centre in Jammu for nearly two weeks after the FIR instead of remaining with her family.

“This un-explained avoidance and rejection of familial proximity by prosecutrix in the aftermath of registration of FIR… further undermines the veracity of her allegations,” the court said.

A major factor that weighed with the court was the medical evidence.

The prosecutrix was medically examined on the evening of May 14, 2022, within hours of registration of the FIR. However, the medical report recorded no marks of violence and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.

The court held that the absence of injuries or medical evidence severely undermined the prosecution case, particularly when the allegation was that the accused had raped the prosecutrix twice.

The testimony of the prosecutrix’s mother and brother was also found to be inconsistent.

The mother of the prosecutrix stated during trial that her daughter initially told her that “nothing has happened,” while the brother stated that the entire process was handled by NGO workers and that relatives had questioned why the matter had been taken to the police instead of being settled privately.

The court also criticised the role played by two prosecution witnesses, Monika Manhas and Richa Abrol.

According to the judgment, Richa Abrol, who claimed association with an NGO named “Muskan Foundation,” had played an “unduly overt role” in the registration and pursuit of the FIR.

The court observed that the witness appeared to have actively persuaded police to proceed with the case despite resistance from the complainant’s family.

“Registration of FIR appears to have been precipitated by PW-5 rather than stemming from a spontaneous report by victim or her family,” the court observed.

It added that such intervention by an outside entity raised “grave concern about the veracity of prosecution case and potential misuse of legal process.”

The court reserved especially harsh criticism for the police investigation.

It noted that the investigating officer recorded the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC ten days after the FIR and visited the alleged place of occurrence only on the tenth day.

The investigating officer was also faulted for not collecting call detail records, failing to properly analyse CCTV footage, not associating crucial witnesses and failing to collect evidence regarding the alleged medical condition of the prosecutrix’s father.

The judgment stated that the investigating agency appeared to have “bent to the will” of NGO witness Richa Abrol.

“Whole investigation therefore is fabricated, botched and concocted and accused has been framed up in a frivolous case by deliberate manipulation,” the court observed.

The court said the accused had suffered incarceration for “one year seven months and eleven days in an occurrence which never took place.”

Acquitting the accused, the court held that there was “nothing on record by way of evidence which could even obliquely suggest that occurrence as alleged ever took place.”

The court discharged the accused from his bail and surety bonds and ordered that any seized property be dealt with in accordance with law after expiry of the appeal period.

In a rare direction, the court also ordered the Jammu and Kashmir Police hierarchy to initiate action against the investigating officers.

The Inspector General of Police, Jammu, has been directed to initiate departmental inquiry against the investigating officer and the then SHO of Police Station R.S Pura.

 

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, has additionally been directed to initiate proceedings under Section 182 RPC against the prosecutrix and conduct an inquiry into the role of the two NGO-linked witnesses.

 

“If enquiry so conducted is affirmative qua said role of these two PWs, then criminal action as per law be also initiated against them,” the court directed.

The court further observed that “tainted investigation and a false complaint” had not only affected the liberty of the accused but had also “decimated his reputation.”

“System is not that insensitive not to take note of it,” the court remarked.