The victim's age and consent, coupled with medical evidence, were crucial in establishing the appellant's guilt under sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellant Ramesh Chandra Sahoo faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Athagarh in Sessions Trial No. 435 of 2006 for offences punishable under sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 16.01.2006 he kidnapped the victim with an intent that she would be compelled to marry against her will and also committed rape on her.

The learned trial Court found the appellant guilty under sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant is the paternal uncle of the victim being the younger brother of the father of the victim. On 16.01.2016 in the early morning while the victim had been to the backyard of her house to bring water, the appellant came there and induced the victim to visit the house of her aunt situated at Angul. When the victim told the appellant that without the consent of her parents, she could not accompany him, the appellant told the victim that her parents would never agree and accordingly, the victim accompanied the appellant and they went first to Dhenkanal where they stayed in the house of a friend of the appellant for four to five days. Then the appellant took the victim to the house of the sister of his friend and kept there for three to four days and then they stayed in a rented house in another place and while they were staying in the rented house, the appellant cohabited with the victim twice.

The first information report was lodged by Dayanidhi Sahoo who is the father of the victim before the officer in charge of Narasinghpur police station on 17.01.2006 and basing on such F.I.R., Narasinghpur P.S. Case No.7 of 2006 was registered under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code by the officer in charge who directed P.W.8 Gobardhan Sahoo, A.S.I. of police to take up investigation of the case.

During course of investigation, P.W.8 examined the informant, visited the spot house, prepared the spot map (Ext. 14), examined other witnesses, seized the School Admission Register of Artatran Nodal U.P. School, Sagar where the victim was prosecuting her studies and handed over such register in the zima of the Headmaster of the school. The officer in charge (P.W.6) took over charge of investigation from P.W.8 and he traced out the victim and the appellant on 11.02.2006. He examined the victim and sent her as well as the appellant for medical examination. He arrested the appellant, seized the wearing apparels of the appellant under seizure list (Ext.8). He seized the sample pubic hair and sample semen of the appellant collected by the doctor. He also seized the saree and saya of the victim under seizure list (Ext.10). The sample pubic hair and vaginal swab of the victim which were collected by the doctor were seized under seizure list (Ext.14). The victim was produced before the learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 and accordingly the same was recorded. The seized exhibits were also sent to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination. The medical examination reports were received and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant on 07.06.2006 under sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session after complying due committal procedure, where the learned trial Court framed the charges as aforesaid against the appellant on 05.01.2007. Since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty