HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Crl LP (D) No. 26/2025 CrlM No. 1619/2025 UT of J&K …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. P.D Singh, Dy. AG vs Parvaiz Ahmed .…. Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 04.09.2025 CrlM No. 1619/2025 This is an appeal filed against the order and judgment of acquittal dated 29.03.2025, passed by the Presiding Officer (Additional District and Sessions Judge) Fast Track Court, Ramban [“the Trial Court”] in case (File No. 61/Challan/31/Rape Case) titled “State of J&K Vs. Parvaiz Ahmed”, whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 376/366 of RPC. The appeal is delayed by 64 days and, therefore, the instant application for condonation of delay is filed. For the reasons stated in the application coupled with the submission made at bar, the delay of 64 days in filing the leave to file appeal is condoned. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Serial No. 55 2 Crl LP (D) No. 26/2025 Crl LP(D) No. 26/2025 This is an application seeking leave of this Court to throw challenge against the judgment dated 29.03.2025 (supra). The impugned judgment is challenged primarily on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its correct perspective and has landed in error of dismissing the challan and acquitting respondent of a heinous charge under Section 376/366 of RPC. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard Mr. P.D. Singh, learned Dy. AG, in support of his challenge to the judgment of acquittal. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly legal and in conformity with the evidence on record. The only incriminating evidence, which is on record, is the statement of the prosecutrix which on a careful consideration does not inspire any confidence. The statement of the prosecutrix is also not supported by any independent witnesses. The medical opinion also rules out the commission of offence of rape. Without going into further arguments, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the UT of J&K should be given leave to file an appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Jammu 04.09.2025 Rahul