ALBERT MINZ Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in S.T. No.23/6 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty of the charge under Sec. 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two years, with a direction that fine amount, if realized, a sum of Rs.4,000.00 shall be paid to the victim towards compensation.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.09.2008 at about 5 p.m. when the victim (P.W.3) (hereinafter referred to as "the victim"), a twelve years old rustic living in a remote area indulging in household activities, the accused finding her alone surged into her house and forcibly committed sexual intercourse despite feeble resistance offered by that female child. Julekha Kandulana (P.W.4), an elderly woman of the neighbourhood when entered into that house to fetch some vegetables, she found the accused committing the sexual act and the victim crying aloud. On her arrival, the accused took to his heels. The crestfallen victim narrated the fateful incident before her where after information being sent, the parents of the victim arrived when she also narrated before them what had happened and as to how the accused subjected her to sexual assault. The matter was brought to the notice of several villagers and thereafter information was lodged at the nearest Police Station whereupon police registered the case, took up investigation, sent the victim as well as the accused for medical examination and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused under Sec. 376(2)(f) of I.P.C. The case being committed to the Court of Session, accused pleaded not guilty before the trial court and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its allegation, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in all. On its behalf the prosecution had also produced twelve documents including the medical reports, School admission register and other material documents and got those documents exhibited. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of his plea of denial. The learned trial court being satisfied with the nature of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, held the accused guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) In assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Mr. P. Ramakrishna Patra, learned advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused submits that there being no credible evidence to hold that the victim was subjected to rape and there being also unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with by this Court. After substantial argument was advanced by Mr. Patra, Mr. D. Jena appearing for the appellant also appears and supports such contention of the learned Amicus Curiae.