Orissa High Court
Biswanath Chhattar vs State Of Orissa on 10 March, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.187 of 2024
(An application U/S. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 18.01.2024
passed by Sri S.K. Nayak, Ad-hoc Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court under POCSO
Act, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in C.T. Case No.106 of 2018
arising out of Jashipur P.S. Case No.89 of 2018).
Biswanath Chhattar .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. D.R. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl.PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING : 05.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10.03.2025
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The convict, having faced the trial being
charged for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.
376(3)(2)(n)/506 of IPC r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO
Act by way of this appeal seeks to challenge the
impugned judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by the
learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanj at
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 1 of 9
Baripada in C.T. Case No. 106 of 2018 convicting him
for offence U/S. 376 of IPC and sentencing him to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 10 years
with a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)
only, in default whereof, to undergo RI for a further
period of three months with benefit of set off of the
pre-trial detention against the substantive sentence.
2. The prosecution case as recapitulated from
the record in precise is that on 27.08.2018 at about
4.00 P.M., the victim, who was residing in her uncle’s
house for last 5 to 6 months thence had been to the
village, but she did not return till evening. On the
next day on 28.08.2018 at about 7.00 to 8.00 A.M.,
the victim returned to home, but did not inform
anything. However, when blood stains were noticed
on her scarf and was repeatedly asked about her
absence during the night, she informed that the
convict on the assurance to leave her in the house
took her to a jungle and committed rape on her there
and also, subsequently committed rape on her in the
house of one person by confining in such house.
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 2 of 9
2.1. On this incident on the same day
28.08.2018, PW.3 lodged an FIR before the IIC,
Jashipur P.S.-cum-PW.13, who registered P.S. Case
No. 89 of 2018 and took up the investigation of the
case by examining the victim and other witnesses
making seizure of wearing apparels of the victim and
the accused and sending them for medical
examination. The accused was in fact detained by the
local public and he was brought by SI- Satish Kumar.
Further, the accused was forwarded to the Court. On
completion of investigation, PW.13 submitted charge
sheet against the convict.
2.2. On finding prima facie case, cognizance
was taken. Accordingly, the convict faced the trial
being charged with offences punishable U/Ss.
376(3)(2)(n)/506 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, when he pleads not guilty to the charge. In
support of its case, the prosecution examined
altogether 18 witnesses and relied upon documents
under Exts.1 to 11 as against no evidence
whatsoever by the defence. The plea of the convict in
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 3 of 9
the course of trial was denial simplicitor and false
implication.
3. After analyzing the evidence on record
upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment
convicting the appellant for commission of offence
punishable U/S. 376 of the IPC and sentencing him to
the punishment indicated in the first paragraph while
acquitting him of the charges for offences U/Ss.
376(3)(2)(n)/506 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. In assailing the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, Mr. Dipak Ranjan
Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that unless the evidence of the victim
inspires confidence of the Court, it should not be
relied upon, but ignoring such principle, the learned
trial Court in this case has relied upon the evidence of
the victim to convict the appellant. It is further
submitted by Mr. Mishra that it is alleged against the
convict for committing rape upon the victim, but no
injury was found on the private part of the victim and
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 4 of 9
thereby, such theory of rape being remotely possible
against the victim, the appellant should not have
been convicted. It is alternatively submitted by Mr.
Mishra that the convict has already undergone
incarceration for a period of six and half years out of
the awarded sentence of 10 years and he having a
dependent family in village, some leniency may kindly
be extended to the appellant in case the conviction of
the appellant is confirmed and, thereby, the sentence
of the appellant be modified to the period already
undergone. Accordingly, Mr.Mishra has prayed to
allow the appeal.
4.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, has
vehemently argued to contend that not only the
evidence of the victim is consistent, but also it
inspires confidence of the Court and therefore, the
learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in
appreciating the evidence of the victim and since the
convict having been rightly sentenced to undergo
minimum punishment, there is no scope for any
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 5 of 9
interference in the sentence of the appellant. Mr.
Mishra has accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, since the
appellant has been convicted for offences U/S. 376 of
the IPC, the evidence of the victim is not only
important, but also requires predominant
consideration because the victim is the only witness
to the occurrence and the sexual offence being
ordinarily committed in seclusion, it is the victim who
can narrate about the incident, but at the same time
it should be remembered that the evidence of victim
deserves acceptance like a injured witness, unless
her evidence is tainted or unworthy of credence and
not free from infirmities. This Court is equally in
agreement that the degree of proof in a criminal case
of this nature must be of a high standard and the
prosecution has to adduce cogent and convincing
evidence to prove the offence and a person cannot be
convicted on mere surmises or conjectures. Judging
the conviction of the appellant on the face of the
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 6 of 9
evidence of the victim, it transpires that the victim
has reiterated as to how she was suddenly taken
away towards the jungle by the convict and forcibly
committed rape upon her despite her protest. When
the testimony of the victim was put to scrutiny in
cross-examination, it was further found by way of an
explanation that the convict committed rape on her
four times in the jungle and three times at his
relative’s house and she had sustained injury above
the knee of right leg of thigh as the convict forcibly
pressed her on the ground while committing the
offence.
6. On considering the evidence of the victim
together with that of the doctor, who had examined
her, it transpires that the doctor had found sign and
symptom of recent sexual intercourse on the victim
as tears were present on the posterior commeasure,
which were red in colour with inflamed margin and
such age of the tears was within 72 hours from the
time of her(Doctor) examination. The Doctor in her
cross-examination has also admitted that in forcible
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 7 of 9
rape, the victim might have sustained bodily injury.
One of the important aspects in this case is that the
evidence of the victim with regard to commission of
rape upon her by the convict has not at all being
demolished in any manner, rather the evidence of the
victim with regard to commission of rape is
corroborated by the medical evidence as discussed.
From a cumulative discussion made hereinabove and
carefully examining the evidence on record, more
particularly the evidence of the victim and medical
evidence, this Court does not find anything or
material evidence to differ with the findings of the
learned trial Court and, therefore, the conviction of
the appellant for offence U/S.376 of IPC does not call
for any interference. However, the learned counsel
for the appellant has alternatively prayed for
reduction of the sentence, but since the appellant has
been sentenced to minimum punishment prescribed
for the offence, there is hardly any scope to interfere
in the sentence of the appellant.
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 8 of 9
7. In the result, the criminal appeal being
devoid of any merit, stands dismissed on contest, but
there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanj at
Baripada in C.T. Case No. 106 of 2018 are hereby
confirmed.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th day of March, 2025/S.Sasmal
CRLA No.187 of 2024 Page 9 of 9
[ad_1]
Source link