NILANCHAL PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under S. 376(2)(f) of the Penal Code and having been sentenced to imprisonment for seven years has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim girl who is aged about seven years was picking rag materials near Venkateswar temple, Berhampur on 6-5-1996. At that point of time the accused-appellant persuaded her to come with him so that he would give her some polythene bags. Lured by the accused, the victim girl accompanied him to a nearby dilapidated house and it is alleged that the accused in the said house forcibly removed the under-garments of the victim girl and performed sexual intercourse with her causing injuries not only on per private part but also on the other part of the body. It is further alleged that after the incident the victim girl returned home weeping and narrated the incident to her mother. Some other ladies who were present went in search of the accused along with the mother of the victim girl and nearby Ramalingam tank the victim girl identified the accused coming from the opposite direction. The accused was caught hold of by the ladies and taken to the Town Police Station. It is also alleged by the prosecution that accused first requested the ladies to leave him and offered money, but when this did not work, he tried to runaway. The authorities in the Town Police Station advised the mother of the girl to report at the Mahila Police Station and accordingly the report was lodged. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence under the aforesaid section. During trial, the accused pleaded total denial of the prosecution allegations and took the plea that the victim girl and her mother were stealing vegetable from his shop and when he caught them, this false case was foisted against him.

(3.) In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses out of whom P.W. 3 is the victim girl, P.W. 4 is her mother. P. W. 7 is the Assistant Professor of Medical College, Berhampur who examined the victim girl and P.W. 1 is the Investigating Officer. Relying on the evidence of those witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Penal Code.