Evidence in rape cases relies heavily on the credibility of the prosecutrix and corroborative testimony can compensate for absence of physical evidence. Conviction upheld despite limited medical corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Appeal No.33/40 of 2009, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2009 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Champua in S.T. Case No.48/149 of 2006 has been confirmed.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.03.2006 afternoon, the victim was taking rest on a cot, and her nephew Surendra Kabat and niece Susmita Naik were inside the house. The outside door was closed. Meanwhile, the accused Sushil Barik entered into the house and asked the victim, who administered poison in his tank. When the victim replied, how could she say that? Then the accused gave her two kick blows. One Harihar Naik had accompanied the accused. When he objected to the conduct, the accused asked him to leave the house. The accused asked the nephew and niece sleeping there to go out from the house. Thereafter, the accused bolted the door from inside and threw the victim on the cot and tore her saree, blouse and forcibly committed rape on her. At that time, the father of the accused was shouting from outside. Hearing his shout, the accused came out and threw away his father on the ground and left the place saying he will keep the victim as his wife. When the brother-in-law of the victim Harihar Naik came, the victim narrated the incident to him. To settle the dispute, there was a meeting in the village, but the accused did not come.

3. On the basis of such allegation, the F.I.R. was registered as Baria P.S. Case No.13 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 452 /323/376 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the victim and other witnesses, seized the clothes of the victim and sent the victim for medical examination. The I.O. arrested the accused and sent him for medical examination and then forwarded the accused to the Court. The I.O. sent all the seized articles to the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 452 /323/376 of I.P.C.

4. To bring home charges, the prosecution had examined 20 witnesses. The material witnesses in the present case, P.W.12 was the prosecutrix, P.W.8 was the niece of the prosecutrix. P.W.9 was the nephew of the prosecutrix. P.W.14 was the doctor who examined the prosecutrix. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 were the other witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.20 was the mother of the victim whereas the P.W.18 was the I.O. in the present case.

5. The learned Trial Court gave emphasis on the evidence of the prosecutrix and the doctor who examined the prosecutrix. The testimony of two child witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 8 & 9 lent support to the prosecution case to bring corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix. The learned Trial Court by appreciating and evaluating the entire evidence on record arrived at the following conclusion:-

"14. Thus on scrutiny of the evidence discussed above and in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Court I am inclined to hold that the accused had entered into the house of the victim, used criminal force to her and raped her against her will and consent. From the evidence of P.W.14 it is noticed that the victim had not sustained any external injury. Therefore, offence U/s. 323 I.P.C. i