The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age and that the relationship was consensual; thus, no conviction for rape or under the Act was sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This appeal assails the judgment of conviction passed on 18.08.2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in S.T. Case no. 21 of 2009 convicting the appellant for offences punishable U/Ss. 493/376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (In short the 'IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default whereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one year on each count. The learned trial Court, however, by the aforesaid judgment has also acquitted the Appellant of the charge U/S.506 of IPC.

An overview of prosecution case:

2. On 18.11.2006 at about 4 P.M., the victim lodged an F.I.R. against the convict under Ext. 4 before the I.I.C., Kuchinda P.S. stating therein that she was in courtship with the appellant preceding three years by keeping physical relationship and they were living as husband and wife in Bonai area and thereafter, they shifted to village Kansar, but after staying there for two days at Kansar, the appellant went away by leaving her and she, thereafter, returned back to Kuchinda by a bus. On alighting from the bus, the middle brother of the appellant namely Dambaru Bagar asked her to go to her house on the next day. He further threatened her to kill, if she disclosed the incident before anybody including the Police. Since she belonged to Basing upon the above information under Ext.5, the I.I.C., Kuchinda P.S. P.W.7-Narayan Nayak registered Kuchinda P.S. Case No. 204 of 2006 and took up the preliminary investigation of the case by examining the victim, but on the next day, P.W.7 handed over the charge of investigation to D.S.P., Sambalpur P.W.8- Dayanidhi Gochhayat, who after examining the father of the victim and two other witnesses, handed over the charge of investigation on 22.05.1997 to D.S.P., Sambalpur, P.W.9- Srikant Kumar Mishra on his transfer and accordingly, P.W.9 proceeded with the investigation and arrested the appellant, obtained the caste certificate of the victim and the appellant. As usual, on completion of investigation, P.W.9 submitted charge sheet against the appellant for offences U/Ss.493/376/506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, under which cognizance was taken and the case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions. On receipt of record of the case upon appearance of the appellant and finding ground for presuming the appellant to have committed the offences, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda framed charge against the appellant for aforesaid offences and this is how the trial commenced in this case.

3. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined PW Nos. 1 to 9 and exhibited six documents vide Ext. 1 to 6 in evidence as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. Of the witnesses examined, PW 1 & 4 are the cousins of victim-cum-PW6, whereas PW 2 & 3 are the Doctors, PW5 is the scribe, whereas PW 7 to 9 are the three IOs.

4. The plea of the appellant convict in the course of trial was denial simplicitor and false implication.

5. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court while acquitting the convict-appellant for offence U/S. 506 of IPC convicted him for offences U/Ss. 493/376 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act by mainly relying upon the evidence of victim and her cousins.

6. In assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted