On Thursday the J&K fast track court found the accused Rajesh Kumar Abrol who is a sub-judge was found guilty of offences under section 420 and section 376(2)(k) of RPC Ranbir Penal Code these were for raping and cheating a woman who came to Rajesh for some legal help in 2018.
Khalil Choudhary was the judge for this case and found the accused Rajesh Kumar Abrol guilty for the charges under 375(2)(k), 420 of the Ranbir penal code the hearing for his sentence will take place on 23 October.
According to the prosecution, the victim was a resident of Ramban district and met Rajesh Kumar Abrol for consultation for her case and being a judicial officer the accused agreed for the legal support but sought domestic help from the woman as she had a minor daughter to support so the women started working in the Abrol house for 5000 per month as salary and he also promised better education for her daughter.
Thus the accused dissolved the women marriage from her husband by getting the divorce deed later he married the said he is going to marry the accused as he had parted ways with his wife for the last 7 years by this the accused secured the victim’s consent for sexual intercourse with her.
As per the prosecution, after one year of marriage with Abrol, the woman came to know that he had betrayed her since he was already married to another woman who was his second wife after his divorce from the first wife.
While passing the conviction order, the court said that there was a complete chain of events and facts to indicate that the crime was committed by the accused and all the circumstances brought on record and established were consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
The Court said that though the case hinged on the sole testimony of the victim, the testimony inspired confidence for it to be accepted even in the absence of any corroborations.
The entire evidence on record proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused secured the prosecutrix’s consent for sexual intercourse by misrepresenting facts, the Court said.
Minor contradictions in the victim’s testimony can be overlooked in such a case, the judgment stated.