JUDGMENT

S.K.SAHOO, J. - “Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes. The problem with groups to deal with rape is that they try to educate woman about how to defend themselves. What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape. Go to the source and start there”.

-Kurt Cobaim.

The appellant Niranjan Pradhan faced trial in the Court of learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Tr. No.2/125 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code for committing rape on one ‘M’ (hereafter ‘the victim’), a girl below the age of 12 years on 3.9.2006 at about 10.30 a.m. at Sikharachandi, Bhubaneswar.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2006 found the appellant guilty under Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ext.1) lodged by one Smt. Purnima Naik (P.W.1) before Mahila Police Station, Khurda is that on 3.9.2006 at about 10.30 a.m. while the informant had gone outside to attend her work and the victim who was her daughter and aged about seven years was watching TV in the house of a neighbour, the appellant called the victim to the backyard of the house of one Dilip (P.W.5) and committed rape on her and handed over Rs.5/- to her. It is further stated that P.W.5 is a witness to the said act. Other people of the locality including one Niranjan stated to have seen the appellant carrying the victim. After ascertaining about the incident from the victim, the FIR was lodged.

3. On the basis of the written report presented by P.W.1, Smt. Lalita Parida, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station registered Khurda Mahila P.S. Case No. 144 dated 3.9.2006 under Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code and directed one Iti Das (P.W.14), Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station to take up investigation.

4. During course of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.14) examined the informant, the victim girl, sent the victim girl for medical examination under police requisition to C.M.O., Capital Hospital. She visited the spot and examined P.W.5 Dilip Behera who identified the spot to her and accordingly prepared the spot map (Ext.10). She also seized the wearing apparels of the victim on production by her mother in presence of the witnesses under seizure list Ext.2. On 4.9.2006 the victim was sent to Capital Hospital for medical examination. The appellant was found in Sikharchandi Basti and P.W.14 sent him to Capital Hospital for medical examination under police requisition. The wearing apparel i.e. Dhoti of the appellant was seized. The I.O. also seized Rs.5/- under seizure list Ext.2, arrested the appellant, received the medical reports of the victim as well as the appellant from Capital Hospital and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code.

5. After submission of charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned trial Court charged the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code on 16.9.2006 and since the appellant refuted that charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.

6. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. P.W.1 Purnima Naik is the mother of the victim and she is the informant in the case. She stated to have heard about the occurrence from the victim and accordingly lodged the FIR.

P.W.2 is the victim girl.

P.W.3 Kamala Naik is the grandmother of the victim and she stated to have heard about the occurrence from the victim.

P.W.4 Rama Naik is the father