MAGUNI RANJAN JYOTI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order of conviction of the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1996 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur (S.C. No. 75 of 1996 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore) and the confirming order with modification of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Jail Crl. Appeal No. 153 of 1997. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 366/376 and 506, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six years for the offence under S. 366, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 for the offence u/S. 376, IPC and R.I. for one year for the offence under S. 508, IPC trial Court also recorded that such sentences to run concurrently. That judgment was delivered by learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Gunupur on 5/05/1997. As against that petitioner preferred the above noted appeal from the Jail. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada heard and disposed of Criminal Appeal as per the impugned judgment dated 12/06/1998. The appellate Court found absence of a case under Section 506, IPC and acquitted the petitioner from the said charge but maintained the order of conviction and sentence with respect to the offence under Section 366 and 376, IPC. Being aggrieved by that petitioner preferred this revision from the Jail.

(2.) Besides advancing oral argument, learned counsel for the appellant submits a written note.

(3.) The case involves a rare instance of a maternal uncle committing rape of his neice i.e. sister's daughter. In the case at hand that is the substance of the prosecution case. Sarita Naik, the prosecutrix (P.W. 10) is one of the five daughters in her family. The family also consists of two sons. After the death of her father the family having rendered destitute and she being a plucked Matric was in search of a job to support the family. Petitioner who is her maternal uncle is also the adjacent neighbour inasmuch as, according to the prosecution, he has been provided with a room and verandah from the residential premises belonging to the family of the prosecutrix. By the date of occurrence, as it revealed from the evidence on record, when the prosecutrix was aged about 18 to 19 years, the accused-petitioner was aged about 52 years.