MANDHAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this revision, has assailed the judgement dated 12.1.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi in Criminal Appeal No.19/17 of 2013-17 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.12.2013 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Special Track Court), Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. (Sessions Case) No.91/1 of 2012-13. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with further direction as to the payment of compensation to the victim under the "Odisha Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2012 put in place pursuant to the provision of section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim, p.w.15, aged about 14 years was dragged by the accused from near the place where a tube-well had been fixed when the victim had gone there to fetch water. It is stated that the victim was dragged to the house of one Udhab Patel and there, in a room of that house, the accused committed rape on her without her consent. It is the further case of the prosecution that the victim thereafter was taken by the accused to the nearby jungle and kept there and it is only around 3.00 pm that he brought her to the village and leaving her near the house of one Manu Patel, fled away. The victim having reported the matter to her mother (p.w.5), on the next day, the FIR (Ext.9) has been lodged. Pursuant to the same, Bhawanipatna Sadar P.S. Case No.166 of 2012 having been registered, in course of investigation, the victim was examined by the investigating officer and sent for medical examination by the doctor. Other incriminating articles having been seized as also the accused being apprehended and medically examined, finally charge sheet was placed. The case then being committed to the court of Sessions, the accused faced the trial for the offence under section 366/376 of the IPC. Having been convicted and sentenced by the trial court, as aforesaid and being aggrieved, thereby the accused had preferred the appeal, which has also failed. Hence, the revision. Prosecution has examined in total 19 witnesses besides proving a number of documents such as FIR (Ext.9), medical reports of the victim as well as accused, seizure lists as to the seizure of incriminating materials etc. The accused, having taken the plea of denial and false implication, has tendered no evidence.

(3.) The trial court upon examination of the evidence both oral documentary has found that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused to the hilt and recorded the finding that the accused has committed the offence under section 376 IPC and convicted the accused followed by imposition of sentence, as above.