The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.294 of 1992 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th July, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.25/14 of 1992. Rama Putel ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - M/s.B.Sahoo, A.K. Mishra, S.Patnaik & A.K. Sahoo (Advocates)
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.07.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th July, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.25/14 of 1992 arising out of G.R. Case No.198 of CRA No.294 of 1992 Page 1 of 6 1991-T.R.166 of 92 pending on the Court of the Learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Patnagarh. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of the offence under section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 08.10.1991 around 1.00 p.m, while the victim (P.W.1) was coming out after taking bath from river bandh, the accused suddenly appeared there and caught hold of her. Thereafter, the accused made her lie on the ground, removed here wearing apparels, committed sexual intercourse and left the place. The victim (P.W.1) thereafter returned to her house and narrated the incident to her cousin brother. On the same day, she (Victim- P.W.1) went to Belpada Police Station and lodged the written report The O.I.C., on receiving the above written report, treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and upon registration of the criminal case, took up the investigation. The I.O. (P.W.8), in course of the investigation, went to the spot, examined the (Victim-P.W.1) and other witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, sent the Page 2 of 6 CRA No.294 of 1992 victim for her medical examination, seized the incriminating articles for chemical examination and on completion of the investigation, submitted the Final Form placing this accused to face the trial for commission of the offence under section 376(1) of the IPC. The learned S.D.J.M., having taken cognizance of the said offence, after observing formalities, committed the case of the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced after framing of the charge for the offence under section 376(1) of the IPC against the accused. That is how the Trial commenced. 3. During Trial, the prosecution, in total, has examined eight (8) witnesses. Out of whom, the important are the victim (P.W.1) and the Doctor, who had examined the victim (P.W.1) and the accused is P.W.7. The I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box as P.W.8. The prosecution, besides leading the above evidence, has proved the several documents, which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 9. Out of the same, the FIR is Ext.1 and the medical report is Ext.3. 4. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence and their evaluation, has recorded the finding that the prosecution has established its case under section 376 (1) of the IPC against CRA No.294 of 1992 Page 3 of 6 the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted and sentenced as afore- stated. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused), placing the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), submitted that the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon her evidence to fasten the guilt against the accused that he had forcibly made sexual intercourse upon her. He further submitted that the circumstances emerging from the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) are disturbing and would rather tend to show that her evidence is highly improbable in so far as such allegation of rape against the accused are concerned. He further submitted that the evidence with regard to the age of the victim is not so convincing and the Trial Court ought not to have held that she was under age given the benefit of doubt. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are impugned in this Appeal, cannot sustain. 6. Mr.P.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Sanding Counsel for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt against the accused as has been recorded by the Trial Court, submitted that there is no inherent improbability in the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly fastened the guilt against the accused. CRA No.294 of 1992 Page 4 of 6 7. Keeping in view the submissions made; I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to P.W.8). The documents admitted in evidence from the side of the prosecution have also been gone through. 8. In order to address the rival submission, let us first straightway proceed to examine the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), who is none other than the victim. It is her evidence that on the relevant date, during mid-day, the accused caughthold of her and made her lie on the ground. It is further stated that this accused then by removing the wearing apparels of the victim as well as by removing his clothes, squeezed her breasts and penetrated his penis into her vagina. It is stated that she came back to the house and narrated the incident to her elder brother. Her evidence is that she ran to the house when the accused rapped her after committing rape on that bathing ghat itself. Her conduct appears that she did not offer any resistance whatsoever. She has not tried to get herself freed from the clutch of the accused nor had given any nail marks on the back of the accused or any other part of his body. She too had raised any hullah nor to have beaten the accused. CRA No.294 of 1992 Page 5 of 6 The Doctor (P.W.7) has deposed that the hymen was ruptured long before and the vagina was admitting two fingers, which according to him is clearly suggestive of that the victim had been earlier enjoyed sex. The further conduct of the victim (P.W.1) can be seen that when she left the place being freed by the accused, she has not immediately informed anyone on the way. As regards, the age of the victim, the evidence on record is not so clinching to arrive at a conclusion finding that she was under aged. In view of all the aforesaid discussion of the evidence, this Court finds that it would be hazardous to accept the solitary testimony of the victim (P.W.1) to base the conviction. 9. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th July, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.25/14 of 1992, are hereby set aside. (D. Dash), Judge. Page 6 of 6 Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 04-Jul-2024 14:56:15 CRA No.294 of 1992