Back
2023 Supreme(Ori) 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Mukunda Parichha – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLA No. 299 of 2015
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Mr.Manoj Kumar Panda, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.Priyabrata Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of voluntary confessions and the need for credible and corroborated testimony in cases of sexual offences.
Headnote:
Rape - Criminal Intimidation - Indian Penal Code, Section 376, Section 506(ii)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence of rape under Section 376 and criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The victim, a minor girl, was allegedly raped by the accused in a forest after being threatened by him. The accused later confessed to the rape in a village meeting.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found the accused guilty of rape and criminal intimidation based on the victim's testimony and the accused's confession in the village meeting.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused committed rape and criminally intimidated the victim, and whether the confession made by the accused in the village meeting was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the confession made by the accused in the village meeting was not voluntary due to coercion and pressure, and therefore, not admissible. The Court also questioned the credibility of the victim's testimony, citing inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty.
JUDGMENT
Sashikanta Mishra,J. - The Appellant challenges the judgment dated 9th March, 2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi, Gajapati in S.T. No.54/2012 whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 376 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further six months for the offence under section 506(ii) I.P.C. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13th July, 2012 when the victim, who was a minor girl aged about 13 years, was preparing to go to School at about 8 A.M., the accused came to her house and informed that he had been directed by Naxals to call her to the forest. When the victim asked the reason, she was told that the Naxals would cut her throat if she did not obey. Thus, the victim being frightened accompanied the accused to the nearby forest at the end of the village where no one was present. Accused informed the victim that he would save her from the clutches of the Naxals in exchange for having sex with him, which was opposed by her. The accused however, put her on the ground forcibly and committed rape. The victim was further threatened that he would cut her throat if she disclosed the occurrence before any person. On 12th September, 2012 there was a gathering of about 500 people for discussion regarding a letter of threat issued by Naxals to the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. In that meeting the accused admitted to have raped the victim despite her protest. As such on 13th September, 2012, the informant lodged a written complaint before the Adava P.S. basing on which P.S. Case No.30/2012 was registered corresponding to G.R. Case No.148/2012 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C., R.Udayagiri. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 376/506 of I.P.C. and cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.
3. The defence took the plea of denial and false implication.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses including P.W.1 as the victim. The prosecution also proved 13 documents and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.
5. The Trial Court framed the following points for determination.
(i) Whether on dated 13.7.2012 at about 8 A.M. inside forest near village Katama the accused had committed rape over the victim who was a minor girl by having forcible sex with her.
(ii) Whether on the above day, date, time and place the accused had criminally intimated the victim by threatening to kill her from like in the event she discloses the fact before anyone with an intention to cause alarm to her ?
6. On the first point, the Trial Court scanned the evidence on record particularly, that of the victim (P.W.1), her mother (P.W.7), villagers (P.Ws.4 and 6) and the two doctors (P.Ws.9 and 10) to hold that the prosecution successfully proved the allegation of rape by the accused on the victim beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, found him guilty under Section 376 of I.P.C. On the second point, the Trial Court took note of the version of the victim that the accused had repeatedly threatened to cut her throat firstly, to commit rape on her and secondly, if she disclosed such fact before any person. Thus, the Trial Court held the Appellant also guilty for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C.
7. Heard Mr. M.K.Panda, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
8. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Panda has raised the following contentions:-
(i) The so called extra judicial confession of the accused before the villagers in the meeting cannot be treated as admissible in view of the evidence that he was pressuri
