The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRA No.140 of 1996 Muna Behera …. Appellant(s) Mr. P. K. Maharaj, Amicus Curiae State of Odisha -versus- …. Respondent(s) Ms. Siva Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 06. 1.
Decision
ORDER 02.09.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Maharaj, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Siva Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant-Muna Behera in the present case has assailed the judgment and order dated 24.02.1996 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Berhampur in S.C. No.12/94 (S.C.106/94 (GDC), whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450/376/506 of I.P.C. On the said count, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 450 of I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section Page 1 of 7 506 of I.P.C. and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 02.10.1993, the informant-Anirudha Digal lodged a written report inter alia stating that he was a student of Khallikote College, Behermpur of +3 final year and was staying on a rented room of one Sarat Chandra Parida of Bada Sahi in one upstairs rooms. There were two other rooms in the upstair of the same building, which were occupied by five other college going students. It is alleged that on 30.09.1993 evening, the cousin sister i.e. the victim of the informant had been to his rented house and stayed with him. On 1/2.10.1993, before going to bed, the sister of the informant wanted to go to the toilet and as there was no upstair, the informant took her to the down stair. At that moment, a young boy came near them and enquire about their identity and challenged the informant as to why he has kept the girl with him. Saying so, he took the complainant and his sister (P.W.5) to the upstair and again enquired about the identity. Hearing the noise, when the neighbouring room boys got up and tried to convince the young man, he threatened them with dire consequences, for which, the other students went inside the room and kept silent. It is also alleged that Page 2 of 7 another young man identified himself as DADA of Bijipur came with a knife and asked the first boy to guard the informant so that he will first enjoy the girl. Thereafter, he dragged the victim to the first room in front of the stair case and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. After departure of the accused- appellant, when the informant went inside the room, he found that the victim being unconscious is lying on the floor of the ground and her wearing apparels were lying in one corner of the said room. Hence, this case. 4. On the basis of such allegations, the case was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation, the accused-appellant was chargsheeted under Sections 450/376/323/506 of I.P.C. On the stance of denial, he was put to trial after framing of the charge. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as ten witnesses. Out of them, P.W.5 is the victim girl, P.W.1 is the Assistant Professor of M.K.C.G. Medical College and examined the victim girl on police requisition. P.W.2 is another doctor of M.K.C.G. Medical College, who examined the accused- Muna Behera and Narasingh Charan Muni on police requisition. P.W.3 is the Assistant Professor of M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, who Page 3 of 7 examined the accused-Nanda Sethi. P.W.4 is the Scientific Officer, who examined the apparels of the accused persons as well as the victim girl. P.W.9 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the T.I. Parade in respect of the suspected accused persons. P.Ws.7 and 8 are independent witnesses and P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet. 6. The learned trial Court by heavily relying upon the evidence of the prosecutrix, medical evidence and the evidence of the victim in detail gave out the following findings:- that “In the instant case, I have carefully gone through the evidence of the victim girl i.e. prosecutrix. There is nothing on record to discard her testimony. On the other hand, her entire evidence is taken to be trust worthy. Further, as I have the already mentioned above, medical examination report vide Ext. 1 in respect of the victim girl clearly shows that the victim girl sustained injuries on her breasts, right side cheek, right shoulder joint and she also complained of pain all over her body and more in the public intra region both extra and geniteria. So, all that I found that the story stated by the victim girl herself is also the medical examination report vide Ext. 1. Again the medical examination reports vide Exts. 2 to 6 in respect of the accused persons also suggest that they were involved in corroborated by Page 4 of 7 recent sexual act. Again from the T. I. Parade reports vide Ext. 10 and 11, I found that during Test Identification Parade, the victim girl correctly identified to all these four accused persons. In. A. I. R. 1992 at page-1161 their Lordships have categorically observed: see them in broad day to identifying "Penal Code (45 of 1860) Ss. 376, 34 Gangrape- Evidence-Offence light committed prosecutrix who had enough accused opportunity in persons identification parade- Medical evidence showing that she had injuries on her private parts- Evidence of prosecutrix appearing no to be such corroboration corroboration provided by medical evidence and also F.I.R. lodged by her. Order of acquittal set aside." However, truthful needs So, in any view of the matter, there can be no escape except from the conclusion that there was such an occurrence in the night in question at the relevant time and all these accused persons raped the victim girl one after another.” 7. I have gone through the entire evidence and findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The evidence brought on record by the prosecutrix corroborates with the medical evidence as well as the evidence of the victim. T.I. parade was also conducted in this case as per the procedure Page 5 of 7 established by law and the victim girl has identified the accused persons. 8. Mr. Maharaj, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has also taken me to the evidence in detail and tried to point out the discrepancies in evidence. However, the learned trial Court indeed has dealt with all the defence pleas in a meticulous manner. So there is no reason to disbelieve and disagree with such findings. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the accused-appellant as held by the learned trial Court stands affirmed. 9. Mr. Maharaj, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that the appellant was arrested on 03.10.1993 and remained in custody up till 15.02.2001. The learned trial Court passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant on 24.02.1996. Thereafter, the appeal is pending since 02.07.1996. In the meantime, the sole appellant-Muna Behera has already undergone the entire sentence period. 10. During the first hour, the Superintendent of Circle Jail, Berhampur was asked to be present in the Court through Virtual Mode. Mr. Dhirendra Nath Barik, Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Berhampur appeared and informed the Court that on 15.02.2001, the appellant has been released as he had served out Page 6 of 7 the entire sentence as awarded against him by the learned trial Court. In so far as the fine amount is concerned, on that day, he paid the fine amount. Hence, he was released. 11. In view of the aforementioned, Mr. Maharaj, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that nothing survives in the present appeal as the appellant has already served out the sentence. 12. 13. Accordingly, the JCRA is disposed of. This Court records appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to the honorariums of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Sep-2025 18:10:43 Page 7 of 7