DHOBEIDHAR NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 29 6 1996 passed by Shti D. G. Samal, Assistant Sessions Judge, Deogarh in S.T. No. 18/3 of 1996 convicting him under section 366/376 of tbe Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentencing him to ' undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 on each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months on each count with direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is as follows : On 10 7 1995 the prosecutris (p. w. 1), aged about twelve years, daughter of the informant (p. w. 2), resident of village Kalanda under Deogarh police station in the district of Deogarh had been to Deogarh with other girls of her village and some relations to witness return car festival. While they were returning to village after witnessing the festival, the grand father of the prosecutrix, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') and his father were also following them. On the way, theaccused enticed the prosecutrix and took bet away. The grandfather of the prosecutrix returned to village and told the matter to p. w. 2. They searched for the prosecutrix, but in vain. On 13 7 1995 he lodged written report (Ext. 3) at the Deogarh police station before the O. I. C. of the said P. S. who treated the same as F.I.R., registered the case under section 366, I.P.C. and directed the S.I. of the said police station (p. w. 10) to take up investigation. During investigation, p. w. 10 examined witnesses, rescued the prosecutrix from the grocery shop of the accused adjoining his residential house in village Goisapada. He arrested the accused and took him to the police station along with the prosecutrix, seized their wearing apparels, sent them; for medical, examination to the Deogarh District Headquarters Hospital, forwarded the accused to court in custody and forwarded the seized wearing apparels for chemical examination. On 6 10 1995 he attested the father of the accused alleging that he had abetted the offence committed by the accused. After completion of investigation p.w. 10 sub mitted chargesheet under sections 363/366/376, I.P.C. against the accused and under sections 212/109, I. P. C, against his father and both of them stood their trial, The trial court convicted the accused as stated earlier but acquitted the co accused, his father, of the charge levelled against him.

(3.) MR . R.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. Pradhah, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, were heard at length. While Mr. Nayak contended that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside, learned Addl. Standing Counsel supported the impugned judgment.