KRUSHNA BISOI Vs. DHANESWARI BISOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Revision Petition No.13 of 2005, setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned C.J.M. -cum -Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.27 of 2003 (C.T. No.340 of 2003) and remanding the case back to the trial court for re -trial by examining the father of the victim and for arranging medical examination of the victim by the doctor for determining the age of the victim at the time of occurrence and to take any other evidence which may throw light on the age of the victim at the time of occurrence.

(2.) THE petitioner faced trial in the aforesaid C.T. Case No.27 of 2003 for commission of offences under Sections 450 and 376 of the I.P.C. On consideration of evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that sexual intercourse by the accused with the victim was with the consent of the latter. While assessing the evidence with regard to the age of the victim, the trial court took into consideration the evidence of victim's mother (P.W.2) and came to the conclusion that the mother of the victim having married at the age of 16 years and 3 to 4 years whereafter her eldest daughter was born and that the victim was possibly the eldest daughter and that the mother being 40 years old the victim would be around 20 years of age by now and would be more than 16 years old at the time of occurrence. Therefore, the trial court acquitted the accused -petitioner of the charges.

(3.) THE acquittal order was challenged by the prosecutrix before the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Criminal Revision No.13 of 2005. It was urged that the father of the victim was examined by the Investigating Officer and that the trial court wrongly allowed the prayer of the prosecutor to dispense with the examination of the father of the victim, who is competent to tell about the age of the victim. It was also pointed out that the ossification test of the victim could not be done at the relevant time as she was then pregnant, but at present ossification test can be done in order to determine the age of the victim at the relevant time of occurrence. Both the contentions, found favour with the learned Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision, set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the matter to the trial court for taking evidence of the father of the victim and any other relevant evidence and also conducting medical examination of the victim for determining her age on the date of the occurrence.