Soumya Ranjan Pattanaik vs State of Orissa

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Ori) 1157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. PUJAHARI, J.
CRLA Nos.551 and 472 of 2010
From the judgment and order dated 15.09.2010 passed by Shri G.P. Sahoo, Special Judge, Keonjhar, in Special Case No.23 of 2007.
Decided on 21st December 2016.
(in CRLA No.551 of 2010)
Soumya Ranjan Pattanaik … Appellant.
Versus
State of Orissa … Respondent.
(in CRLA No.472 of 2010)
Subash Pattanaik … Appellant.
Versus
State of Orissa … Respondent.

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant : M/s Manoj Ku.Pati, C.C. Nayak, B.P. Satapathy & S.S. Routray
For Respondent:Addl. Government Advocate.
For Appellant : M/s Manoj Ku.Pati, C.C. Nayak, B.P. Satapathy
For Respondent:Addl. Government Advocate.

Headnote:1. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sec. 376 - Conviction under - Appeal - A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity has ever occurred - No basic infirmity or embellishment in the evidence of the victim and her mother - Their testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable - Finding of guilt under the section against appellant is unassailable and cannot be interfered with. (Para - 9)
        2. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sec. 506 - To establish an offence of “criminal intimidation” punishable under the section, there must be an ‘intent’ to cause alarm to the former by a threat to him of injury to himself or to the later - ‘Intent’ itself might be complete, though it would not be effected - Existence of the intent seems essential to the offence, as also and equally to the attempt to commit the offence, since otherwise the attempt would be to do something not constituting the offence.
        Threat, in order to be indictable, must be made with intent to cause alarm to the victim. Mere vague allegation by the accused that he is going to torch the house or to drive them from village cannot amount to criminal intimidation. To answer “criminal intimidation” the threat must cause, inter-alia, alarm in the mind of the victim. It must be shown in order to prove “criminal intimidation” that threat was with intent to cause alarm to that person. Unless that intent is proved, the charge must fail.
        3. EVIDENCE - Iliterate rustic Harijan girl - Testimony of an unsophisticated Harijan woman can be accepted inspite of some minor and nominal discrepancies - A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity has ever occurred - Further stated.
        She would be conscious of danger of being ostracized by the society and being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her matrimonial home happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these and similar factors, the victim and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books.

JUDGMENT

S. PUJAHARI, J. - Since both these criminal appeals have been directed against the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2010 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No.23 of 2007, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment to avoid any conflicting finding.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge, Keonjhar has convicted the appellant – Soumya Ranjan Pattnaik under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three years under Section 376 of IPC and R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months respectively. The learned trial court has convicted the appellant – Subash Pattnaik under Section 506 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months with further direction to pay the aforesaid fine amount, if realized from the appellants, to the victim as compensation. The learned trial court, however, found the appellants not guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act.

3. The facts of the case as disclosed by the prosecution are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 26.03.2007 at Soso Police Station incorporating, inter-alia, that the victim is a rustic illiterate Harijan spinster, aged about fourteen years, she was impregnated by appellant - Soumya Ranjan Pattnaik who finding her alone in her house, committed sexual intercourse by force on a day about five months preceding the date of filing of F.I.R. on 26.03.2007. It was under threat. Subsequently, thereafter on two other subsequent occasions the said appellant also subjected the victim to forcible sexual intercourse. Being under terrible fear, the victim could not divulge such act before her parents. Once, the local A.N.M. disclosed before the victim’s mother that her daughter is impregnated, the crestfallen mother then confronted the victim who divulged before her as to what had happened. The victim’s mother immediately rushed to the house of the appellants and when questioned the appellant – Subash Pattnaik as to why his son committed such a barbarous sexual act against an innocent minor girl, he threatened to torch the house and to drive out them from the village. Notwithstanding such threat, the victim’s mother immediately rushed to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. Thereafter, investigation was taken up and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the S.D.J.M., Anandapur. In accordance with law the case was committed to the Special Court. After considering the materials brought on record and hearing the parties, the appellants were charged for the aforesaid offence. When the charge was read over and explained, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there being no substantial material to hold that the victim was below sixteen years, there being inordinate delay of more than five months in lodging of F.I.R. and the version of the victim being not verses from bible, the conclusion of guilt recorded by the learned trial court is unsustainable.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that there is overwhelming material on record to hold that the victim is less than sixteen years of age where the consent being immaterial, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not call for any further consideration.

7. Before dilating upon the question raised, at the outset, I would like to examine the materials on record to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document