The competency of a child witness, the legal requirements for proving the age of the victim, and the sufficiency of evidence in cases of sexual offenses were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

The appellant Damodar Das @ Bhoi faced trial in the Court of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge (Special Track), Puri in S.T. Case No.8/158/336 of 2013/2011 for commission of offences under sections 366/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 27.05.2011 at about 11.00 p.m he kidnapped the victim who was aged about 12 years, with intent that she might be forced to illicit intercourse and committed rape on the victim and also committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim to kill with injury to her person.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.12.2013 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. of six months for committing offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six more months for committing offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for two months for committing offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report submitted by P.W.4 Dhaneswar Sahoo, the father of the victim on 28.05.2011 before I.I.C, Sadar police station, Puri is that a marriage procession was going in front of the house of the informant on 27.05.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. which is situated in village Kashi Haripur and the victim who was aged about 12 years was standing in front of her house and watching the procession. The brother of the victim namely Niranjan left with the marriage procession and at that time, the appellant came in a motorcycle and took the victim towards Chandanpur and in an isolated place, he committed rape on her forcibly. When the victim shouted, some persons arrived there for which the appellant left the spot. The victim was brought to the house by some persons and she was found in a critical condition. The appellant threatened that in case the incident is disclosed, the victim would be killed by throwing bomb.

On the basis of such F.I.R., Puri Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 dated 28.11.2011 was registered under sections 366-A/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code by P.W.11 Srikant Kumar Tripathy, Sub-Inspector of police in the absence of Inspector in charge who also took up investigation. During course of investigation, he examined the informant and the victim and other independent witnesses, visited the spot and prepared spot map. The victim and the appellant were sent for medical examination on police requisition. The appellant was arrested on 29.05.2011 and he was forwarded to Court on 30.05.2011. The wearing apparels of the victim were sent for chemical examination to S.F.S.L, Bhubaneswar and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 24.09.2011 against the appellant under sections 366/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. 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 sections 366/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.

4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses.

P.W.1 Sushama Behera was the Sarpanch of Gopinathpur Panchayat and she stated that 28.05.2011 the informant came with the victim and other relatives to her house and disclosed before her that the victim had been raped by the appellant and she was not in a position to stand and accordingly she advised the informant to lodge the first information report.

The evidence of P.W.2 Sadasiva Pradha