HC orders examination of prosecutrix in 2018 attempt-to-rape case, sets aside trial court order

08/07/2026

SRINAGAR, Jul 7: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside a trial court order refusing to summon key prosecution witnesses in a 2018 attempt-to-rape case, holding that denial of an opportunity to examine the prosecutrix would result in a grave miscarriage of justice.
Justice Shahzad Azeem passed the order while allowing a petition filed by the Union Territory through Police Station Charar-e-Sharief against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Budgam, which had rejected the prosecution's application seeking to summon the prosecutrix and two other material witnesses after closure of prosecution evidence.
The case arises out of FIR No. 50/2018 registered under Sections 376/511 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) against accused Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh. The chargesheet was filed on September 18, 2018, and charges were framed on February 4, 2019.
The High Court noted that although four prosecution witnesses had been listed, only one witness had been examined during the seven-year trial. After the prosecution evidence was closed on November 20, 2025, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under the then applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking to summon the remaining material witnesses. The trial court rejected the plea, citing delay and lack of diligence by the prosecution while also directing action against the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
Setting aside the order, Justice Azeem observed that the trial court had overlooked the valuable rights of the victim and that the testimony of the prosecutrix was of paramount importance in a case involving an allegation of attempt to commit rape.
"The evidence of the Prosecutrix (PW1) is of paramount importance in cases of this nature. Denial of opportunity to examine star witnesses would cause grave miscarriage of justice and defeat the very object of a fair trial," the court observed.
The High Court further held that the power of a trial court to summon witnesses at any stage of the proceedings must be exercised to discover the truth, particularly in sexual offence cases where the victim's testimony forms the foundation of the prosecution case.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Zahira Abdullah Sheikh vs State of Gujarat, the court observed that a criminal court must actively participate in the trial process to elicit all relevant material necessary for arriving at the truth and ensuring justice.
The court also observed that systemic failures on the part of the prosecuting agency could not be permitted to result in the acquittal of an accused on technical grounds when the victim had yet to be examined. It added that while the trial court was justified in expressing displeasure over the prosecution's negligence, it should have allowed the application with appropriate conditions instead of rejecting it outright.
Allowing the petition, Justice Azeem directed the trial court to summon the prosecutrix (PW-1), PW-2 and PW-4 forthwith, including through bailable or non-bailable warrants if necessary, and examine them without granting unnecessary adjournments. The court further directed that every effort be made to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
The High Court also directed the Director General of Prosecution to identify the officers responsible for the prolonged delay in producing prosecution witnesses and initiate appropriate departmental action. A compliance report has been ordered to be filed before the trial court within four weeks.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty