The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix in cases of sexual molestations and the principle that her testimony may be relied upon without corroboration if it inspires confidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant from inside the jail has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Dharamgarh in C.T. (Special Act) No. 17/07 of 2011.

By the said judgment, the appellant has been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. which has been followed by the order directing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more for offence under section 366 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo rigorous for one year more for offence under section 376 IPC with the concurrent running of the substantive sentences.

2. Prosecution case in short is that on 9.11.2010 the victim, P.W. 17 aged about 15 years while going to the field was forcibly taken away by the appellant to a distant village Narla and kept in the house of one of the relations of the appellant. It is the further case of the prosecution that there the appellant committed rape upon her. After three days being kept confined in that house and being raped by the appellant, the victim was rescued by her brother and another. Thereafter she having narrated the incident before her mother (P.W.15), lodged the FIR on 15.11.2010 at Koksara Police Station.

In course of investigation, victim and other witnesses were examined and the victim was sent for medical examination. Wearing apparels of the victim along with other incriminating materials were seized. Appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination. His wearing apparels etc. as well as the motor cycle used by the appellant was seized from his house.

On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant to face the trial for commission of offence under section 366 and 376 IPC. The case being committed to the Court of Special Judge, Bhawanipatna, the appellant faced the trial being charged for said offences. During trial, the appellant took the plea of denial.

3. Prosecution in the trial has examined altogether 18 witnesses. Out of whom P.W.17 is the victim and P.W.15, the mother of the victim is the informant. P.W. 16 is the father of P.W.17. P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 are the constables in whose presence wearing apparels of victim and appellant along with other incriminating materials were seized. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the co-villagers of the appellant in whose presence motor cycle was seized. P.W.5 is the scribe of the FIR whereas P.W. 6 is the Medical Officer who examined the victim on police requisition and the other Medical Officer who had examined the appellant has been examined as P.W. 12. P.W. 8, the wife of the appellant is a witness to the seizure of the motor cycle in whose zima it was left after seizure. P.W. 9 is the Headmaster-In-Charge of Ichhapur U.P. School from whose custody, the School Admission Register containing the entry relating to the admission of the victim in the said School had been seized. P.W. 11 is another such seizure witness. P.W. 9 the Revenue Inspector, has been examined to prove the Caste Certificate of the victim. P.Ws. 13 and 14 are co-villagers of the victim, who are stated to be present at the time of kidnapping. The Investigating Officer of the case has come to be examined at the end as P.W. 18.

The defence case is one of denial.

4. The learned trial court formulating the points for determination, upon scrutiny of evidence on record and on evaluation thereof has held the appellant guilty of offence under section 366 and 376, I.P.C. and accordingly, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as afore stated.

5. Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the trial court fastening the guilt upon the appellant for commission of offence under sections 366/376 IPC is unsustainable