CHANDRA SEKHAR PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 354, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khurda, and on appeal the said conviction and, sentence have been affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Puri.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 25 -8 -1977 at 2 p. m. one Tukuna, was. going to her master's house when the accused called her and embraced her. When the victim raised alarm the accused gagged her mouth. Ultimately the girl could release herself. A report to this effect was lodged at the police station orally which was reduced to writing and was treated as F. I. R. and the Police then investigated into the offence. After completion of investigation police submitted charge -sheet. - - The defence plea is one of denial and further according to the defence a false case has been foisted as there was a party faction in the village and the accused belonged to the rival faction.

(3.) MR . Mohanty appearing for the petitioner contends that though he does not dispute as to the legal position that a conviction can be based on an uncorroborated testimony but he contends that such testimony must be above board and the witness must belong to the category wholly reliable. According to Mr. Mohanty if the evidence of P. W.4 is scrutinised, she cannot be dubbed as a wholly reliable witness and, therefore, unless there is some corroboration to her statement either by oral or circumstantial evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained in eye of law. He further submits that rule of prudence always requires that the solitary witness must be corroborated. The learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that since Courts of fact have relied upon the evidence of the victim girl, it would not be proper for the revisional Court to re -appraise the evidence and come to a different conclusion.