Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has scaled down a rape conviction to one of attempt to commit rape, after finding that medical evidence did not support the prosecution's claim of penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl in Handwara.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, hearing the appeal, altered the conviction of Showkat Ahmad Seer from Section 376 RPC (rape) to Section 376 read with Section 511 RPC (attempt to rape), and brought down his sentence from ten years to five years rigorous imprisonment, along with a reduced fine.
How the Case Began
The matter dates back to July 2016. According to the complainant, Bashir Ahmad Seer, a porter employed with the Army, his daughter had gone to irrigate the family's fields on 15 July 2016 when the appellant allegedly caught hold of her, took her to a nearby forest, tore her clothes and sexually assaulted her. The girl's mother claimed she heard cries and rushed to the spot, finding the appellant on top of her daughter, who fled upon seeing her.
The FIR was lodged four days later, on 19 July 2016, at Police Station Qalamabad. The trial court at Handwara convicted the appellant under Section 376 RPC and sentenced him to ten years in prison with a fine of Rs 50,000.
What the Medical Report Actually Said
This is where the case took a turn before the High Court. The medical examination of the victim, conducted the day after the FIR was registered, found laceration marks on her nose and chest and a bruise on her thigh. But crucially, her hymen was found intact, and the doctor noted that the introitus admitted only a little finger, with difficulty.
The medical officer, examined as PW-4, had categorically opined that the victim had not undergone coitus. No spermatozoa were detected on the vaginal smear, though this was partly explained by the fact that the victim had bathed and changed clothes before examination.
The court noted this evidence directly contradicted the prosecution's central claim. As the judgment observed, "the absence of rupture of the hymen or the fact that the hymen remains intact is not, by itself, determinative of whether rape has occurred," but in this case, the medical findings went further and ruled out penetration altogether.
Doubts Over the Mother's Presence at the Spot
The court also scrutinised the testimony of the victim's mother, who claimed to have witnessed the assault. Her own statement during investigation indicated she had gone to a nearby market to buy medicine around the same time the incident allegedly occurred, a detail she later tried to walk back in court. Given the travel time involved, the judge found her claimed presence at the scene during the relevant window "highly improbable."
The bench also flagged inconsistencies in the victim's own account, particularly her claim of being dragged to the spot, a detail absent from her earliest statement to police and unsupported by any injuries on her arms or body that such dragging would typically cause.
What the Court Concluded
Despite these gaps, the judge did not accept the defence argument that the entire case was fabricated. The court pointed to the unexplained laceration on the victim's perineum and her account of the appellant ejaculating, concluding that some form of sexual assault attempt had indeed taken place, just not amounting to completed rape.
The judgment held that the evidence "clearly establishes that the appellant had disrobed himself, torn the victim's pyjama and subjected her to a sexual assault by pressing his genital organ between her thighs, culminating in ejaculation," which demonstrated intent to commit rape without amounting to actual penetration.
On the matter of delay in filing the FIR, often a point of contention in such cases, the court took a measured view, noting that hesitation by families in reporting sexual offences against young girls is not unusual given social considerations, and does not by itself discredit a prosecution case.
Final Order
The court relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K to support converting the offence to attempt rather than acquitting the appellant outright.
Taking into account his age at the time of the incident and the time already spent in custody, the High Court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000, with the custody period already undergone to be set off against the sentence.
Case Details:
Case Title: Showkat Ahmad Seer vs. UT of J&K through Police Station Qalamabad
Case Number: CrlA(S) No. 02/2024
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar
Decision Date: 16 June 2026
