The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; an acquittal is warranted if evidence is inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.04.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 133/3 of 1997-98, whereby the present appellant, Ajit Sahu, was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”), but convicted under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of a woman and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.10.1996 at about 7:00 PM, the victim, Ms. Debaki Sahu, then allegedly aged about 14 years, had gone outside her house to relieve herself. At that moment, the accused, who belonged to the same village, is said to have forcibly covered her mouth with her saree, lifted her physically to a nearby Mohua tree, disrobed her, threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm, and forcibly raped her. The incident was allegedly witnessed towards its end by the victim’s mother and cousin, who raised an alarm, causing the accused to flee the spot. The matter was reported the next day to the Titilagarh Police Station, and investigation ensued. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC was submitted, and trial commenced.

3. At trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. PW1 was the victim herself, PW2 was her mother, PWs 3, 4 and 5 were other villagers and seizure/post-occurrence witnesses, and PW6 was the Investigating Officer. However, PW1, the informant-victim, was declared hostile. She did not fully support the prosecution's version of rape in her chief examination, although during cross-examination, she admitted to having made such statements to the police in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and in her FIR.

4. It is also apparent on record that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. The medical examination report of the victim, conducted on 24.10.1996, did not find any signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries suggestive of force. Similarly, the medical report of the accused dated 25.10.1996 revealed no signs of recent sexual activity. Furthermore, there was a notable inconsistency in the age of the victim as recorded in the FIR and the medical report, which casts a serious doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s case. These significant infirmities in the medical and documentary evidence weaken the substratum of the prosecution’s version and should have been considered with due seriousness by the learned trial Court while evaluating the credibility of the evidence. The learned trial Court, after weighing the evidence, held that the allegation of rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC, concluding that there was clear use of criminal force intending to outrage the modesty of the victim(PW1).

5. The trial Court, after threadbare analysis, has arrived at the following finding-

“However, in any case taking into consideration the oral evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of this case although the story of commission of rape is not proved through convincing evidence but there is direct any cogent evidence on record from which there can be no escape except from the conclusion that on the date of occurrence at the relevant time the accused used criminal force on the victim at the spot in question with the intention to outrage her modesty. Therefore, I must say that although the accused is not liable U/S. 376 of the I.P.C. but he is liable U/S.354 of the I.P.C.

7) In the result, I therefore hold that the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/S. 376 I.P.C. and accordingly is acquitted of the said offence, But he is found guilty U/s.354 of I.P.C.