(1.) The appellant herein assails the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Jagatsinghpur in S.T. No.3/10 of 2009 convicting him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the I.P.C.") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months.
(2.) Brief fact of the prosecution as unfolded before the trial court is that in the midnight of 02.07.2008 the victim, a minor girl around 13 years old, while defecating in a field, the appellant dragged her to a nearby building and on its verandah subjected her to sexual ravishment. After satisfying his sexual lust while the appellant was taking the victim towards agricultural field for obvious reasons, he was apprehended by two persons where he confessed to have committed rape on the minor. The fact was reported before the I.I.C., Paradip Police Station, pursuant to which Paradeep P.S. Case No.178 of 2008 was registered and investigation taken up. The victim was subjected to medical examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and exhibited twelve documents and also produced wearing apparels of the victim and that of the appellant as M.Os.I to VI. On assessment of the evidence, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.
(3.) Analysing the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submits that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim being not above reproach, placing absolute reliance on such tainted evidence and holding the appellant guilty on such basis is unsustainable. The learned counsel also submits that there being mitigating circumstances galore, the learned trial court should not have imposed sentence more than the minimum, as such, the sentence imposed being not commensurate with the crime, the same needs to be modified.