NILAMBAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in Sessions Case No.161/29/4 of 2010-2011 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty of the charge under Sec. 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as emanating from the first information report is that the accused on 06.09.2007 on a false pretext took the victim with him in a motorcycle assuring the victim's father that he would drop the victim in Block office at Tarava where her elder sister recently got employed. However, the accused took the victim on false pretext to Bargarh where he kept her in a lodge and subjected her to sexual intercourse which was without her consent and against her will. The matter was reported at Bolangir Sadar Police Station where-after she was subjected to medical examination, accused was arrested, incriminating materials were seized and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused, he allegedly having committed offence punishable under Sec. 363 of I.P.C. read with Sec. 376 of I.P.C. The plea of the accused before the trial court was one of denial and false implication. Prosecution examined twelve witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused and also exhibited several documents. On the basis of evidence brought on record, the learned trial court being satisfied that the victim was above the age of eighteen years held the accused not guilty under Sec. 363 of IPC, but held him guilty under Sec. 376(1) of Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) The accused assailed the judgment of conviction solely on the plea that even if the case of sexual intercourse is upheld, but that being not against the will and without the consent of the victim, the judgment of conviction under Sec. 376 of Penal Code is indefensible.