ATANU KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and two others (since acquitted) faced trial under Secs. 363 and 376 read with Sec. 34, IPC, in Sessions Trial NO.51/5 of 1990 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. Upon trial, the learned trial Court while acquitting two of the accused persons, convicted the petitioner under Secs.363 and 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment on each count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against his conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No 125/17 of 1990/91 and the Additional Sessions Judge on reappraisal on the evidence, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against this judgment and order that the present revision is filed.

(2.) To put shortly, the prosecution case unfurled during trial is that on 23-4-1989 Pasala Kumari, a minor girl, while returning home from school with her friends, the petitioner along with two other accused persons (since acquitted) kidnapped her in a jeep towards Sambalpur. Thereafter she was brought to Cuttack and was lodged in Basanti Hotel wherefrom police rescued her on the next day. It is alleged that, while staying in the hotel the petitioner committed sexual assault on her. Report being lodged to the police, a case under Sec. 366, IPC was registered and investigation taken up. In course of investigation PW 5 was sent for medical examination and on receipt of the medical examination report, charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner and his associates under Secs. 366 and 376, IPC. When examined under Sec. 313, Cr. P.C the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.

(3.) In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. No evidence was led by the defence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence case to hold that Pasala Kumari being minor, was kidnapped from out of the keeping of her lawful guardian without guardians consent and was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the petitioner.