The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.332 of 2003 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 21st November, 2003 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nayagarh in S.T. 67/176 of 2002/2001 Ashok Kumar Nath ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.R. Mohanty (Advocate) For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 02.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 20.05.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st November, 2003 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nayagarh in S.T. 67/176 of 2002/2001 arising out of G.R. Case No.104/2000 of the file of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Nayagarh. CRLA No.332 of 2003 Page 1 of 5 The Appellant (accused) standing charged for commission of offence under section 493/313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) as also in the alternative for commission of offence under section 376 of the IPC; has been found guilty by the Trial Court only for the offence under section 312 of the IPC. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Prosecution case is that the victim, who was prosecuting her study in a High School was staying in a rented house along with her mother. The Appellant (accused) who was also a student staying in the said rented house. The Appellant had established good relationship with the victim girl. It is alleged that during noon hour of 01.01.2000, in the absence of the mother of the victim, he ravished her and when the victim protested the Appellant, promised to marry her. On the next day, he took the victim to temple of the Deity of Raghunath Jew at Odagaon and after putting garland on her neck accepted her as his wife and thereafter, they stayed together as husband and wife for about ten days . Then the Appellant left the victim with her mother for prosecuting her study and promised to take after he gots a service. It is stated that on 10.03.2000, when the victim feel ill and complained of head reeling and vomiting, it was detected that she was pregnant. When the Appellant (accused) was sent for, he came and executed a document on 13.03.2000 to have married the CRLA No.332 of 2003 Page 2 of 5 victim and promised to take her after he returned from the village. Thereafter, he did not accept the victim for which village meeting was convened and then F.I.R. was lodged with the Inspector-In-Charge, Nayagarh Police Station (P.W.10). Receiving the said written report, the same was treated as F.I.R. (Ext.4) and the case being registered, the I.I.C. (P.W.10) took up the investigation. During examination the I.O (P.W.10) examined the Informant-Victim (P.W.7), her mother (P.W.3) and other witnesses. Got the informant (victim) medically examined. On completion of investigation, the Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the trial for commission of offence under sections 493/313/ 376 of the IPC. The case being then committed to the Court of Sessions, the trial ultimately came to be concluded in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. It be stated that further case of the prosecution is that the accused during investigation had caused the miscarriage of the victim without consent. 3. In the Trial, the prosecution in total examined eleven witnesses, out of whom the important are the victim (P.W.10) and her mother (P.W.3). Besides above, prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and CRLA No.332 of 2003 Page 3 of 5 marked Ext.1 to Ext.9. Out of those, the important are the FIR (Ext.4), Medical Examination Report of the Victim (Ext.1). 4. The Trial Court upon scrutiny of the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the prosecution has held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 376 of the IPC as against the accused and so also under section 493 of the IPC. Having said so, on the available evidence on record, the Trial Court has, however, held the accused guilty for commission of offence under section 312 of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused has been sentenced as aforestated. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant from the beginning without questioning the finding of guilt as has been returned by the Trial Court confined his submission as to the modification of sentence. According to him, the Appellant then was aged about 24 years and his present age is around 45 years. He submitted that the accused is now living with his family. He further submitted that the Appellant who hails from rural background when has already undergone agony of a criminal trial for more than 24 years, at this distance of time when he has remained in custody at the pre-trial stage for more than a month, the sentence for the period undergone would serve the ends of justice. CRLA No.332 of 2003 Page 4 of 5 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court commensurate the offence and it needs no further modification. 7. Taking into account the submissions made and further viewing the fact that by now there has been lapse of more than twenty five (25) years and the Appellant presently having attained the age of forty five years is residing with family in rural area having no such criminal antecedent; I am of the considered view that at this distance of time, sentence of imprisonment for the period undergone for the conviction under section 312 of the IPC would serve the interest of justice and meet its end. 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the modification of the sentence to the extent as indicated above. The conviction of the Appellant for the offence under section 312 of the IPC being confirmed; the Appellant is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for the period undergone. Sd/- (D. Dash), Judge. Himansu True Copy P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-May-2024 20:00:37 CRLA No.332 of 2003 Page 5 of 5