DURYODHAN MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Duryodhan Majhi @ Durja faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Nuapada in S.A. Case No.53 of 2018/T.R. No.24/2019 for commission of offences punishable under Sec. 376(2)(n)/ 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'I.P.C.') read with Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter 'POCSO Act') on the accusation that on 27/12/2018 at Jhanjimunda forest, he committed rape on the victim repeatedly against her will and without her consent and that the victim was under sixteen years of age by then and that he had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that one Kamal Majhi (P.W.1), the father of the victim lodged the first information report on 28/12/2018 before the Inspector in-charge of Nuapada police station stating therein that the victim was fourteen years of age and she was prosecuting her studies in Class-IX while staying in the house of her grandfather. On 27/12/2018, the appellant who is a co-villager of the informant, approached the victim in the house of her maternal grandfather at about 10.00 a.m. and told her that her parents have sent him to take her to them to village Chanamunda. He further alleged that the appellant told the victim that after he returned from Nuapada, he would take her with him and after sometime around 1.00 p.m., the appellant came back and in spite of reluctance of the victim to accompany him, he took her on a motorcycle. The appellant took the victim inside the Jhanjimunda jungle road and after going some distance in the said jungle, he stopped his motorcycle and pulled the victim inside the bushes, made her lie on the ground, removed her wearing apparels and committed rape on her. The victim shouted during the occurrence which attracted the attention of one Tulsiram Majhi (P.W.4) and Fade Majhi (P.W.5) to the spot and they rescued the victim and left her in her parental home. The victim was crying and she disclosed before the informant about the commission of rape by the appellant.

(3.) The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial and it was pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case and that no such occurrence had actually taken place.