The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of dealing with rape cases with utmost sensitivity and the legal principle that the victim's testimony should be believed without seeking corroboration if it is reliable.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner accused herein was convicted for the offence under Sections 363/376 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in C.T. No. 63 of 2005 as per judgment passed on 03.02.2006 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 376 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for two months and to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 363 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for two months with both the sentences directed to run concurrently. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jeypore vide judgment dated 21.11.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2006.

Challenging such judgment of conviction and sentence and the order of its confirmation in appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 30.01.2004 at about midnight when the victim was sleeping on her verandah, a boy, named, Sansai called her for which she opened the door and came outside but the petitioner, who was present outside, caught hold of her and forcibly dragged her to a vehicle parked nearby.

Thereafter he took the victim to an Akasia plantation in the vehicle and on reaching there, he dragged the victim out of the vehicle and took her into the plantation area and assaulted her. He thereafter forcibly removed her wearing apparel and committed sexual intercourse. The other accused, namely, Bansidhar Bisoi, who was sleeping in the vehicle, came and rescued the victim and thereafter they went away leaving the victim at the spot. The victim proceeded to a nearby village, named, Pakhanaguda and called one Balarama Gadava and narrated the incident before him and his wife and took shelter in his house. On the next morning the said Balaram Gadava went to the house of the victim at Bijarapalli and narrated the incident before her father. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged before the OIC of Mahila Police Station leading to registration of Jeypore Mahila Police Station Case No. 03 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 73 of 2004 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.

The accused took the plea of denial.

To prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses including the victim as P.W.-1. Basing on the clear and uncontroverted evidence of the victim, as corroborated by the evidence of her father (P.W.-2) and Balaram Gadava (P.W.-3), the trial court found that the charge under Sections 363 and 376 IPC was clearly made out. The trial court found the victim to be aged about 16 years on the basis of opinion of the doctor, who was examined as P.W.-4. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him as aforesaid.

The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Court of Sessions, which was disposed of by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jeypore. Learned lower appellate court, after scanning the evidence on record independently in the light of the contentions raised by the defence, held that no case for interference had been made out. On the contrary, the appellate court found that there is clear evidence that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse and semen was ejaculated in her genitals. Finding that the evidence of the victim (P.W.-1) was amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-3 and the chemical analysis report, (Ext.-9), the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal.

Feeling further aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision.

3. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Assailing the impugned judgments, Mr. Mishra has raised the following contentions:

(i) The victim’s version that she was dra