The absence of specific charges does not invalidate the conviction if the defense was aware of the allegations and evidence is duly presented, emphasizing the reliability of witnesses' testimonies in sexual offence cases.

JUDGMENT:

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned judgment dated 27^th March, 2025 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kantabanji confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 23^rd November, 2024 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kantabanji in S.C. Case No.83/37 of 2013 on the grounds inter alia that the same are liable to be interfered with and set aside.

2. The petitioners faced trial in S.C. Case No.83/37 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 452 ,341,354 and 506 read with 34 IPC combinedly and in addition, petitioner No.1 under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that the alleged occurrence took place on 1^st June, 2012, during and in course of which, the petitioners entered inside the house of the informant and one of them, namely, petitioner No.1 threatened the victim with a knife and thereafter, the other events followed. It has also been alleged against petitioner No.1 that he threatened the informant and others, if she did not marry him. In course of investigation, the previous incident, which had happened with the informant, was revealed and according to the prosecution, it took place on 27^th April, 2012 at about 5 P.M., when petitioner No.1 asked the informant over phone to marry him and on her denial, she was threatened and thereafter, under threat and compulsion, accompanied him to Puri. It is further alleged that during such time, while staying together, petitioner No.1 committed other mischief by having physical relationship with the informant and also threatened her to upload the naked photographs of their intimate moments in social media and finally, on 29^th April, 2012, she returned to home. After the above incidents having taken place with the involvement of petitioner No.1, the subsequent event took place on 1^st June, 2012, whereafter, the report was lodged at the PS. Upon registration of Bangomunda P.S. Case No.45 dated 1^st June, 2012 for the alleged offences, the investigation was conducted and ultimately, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioners to stand their trial in the Court of law. After commitment of the case, the petitioners when pleaded not guilty, the trial began and ultimately, it led to the passing of the impugned order of conviction and sentence. At the end of the trial, the petitioners were found not guilty for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC and at the same time, petitioner No.1 for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 34 IPC. However, both were convicted under Sections 452 ,341,352 and 506 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each with default sentence; S.I. for one month each for the offences under Sections 34 1 and 352 read with 34 IPC; and S.I. for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 506 (part-1) read with Section 34 IPC with all such sentences to run concurrently with their period of detention being set off.

3. With the petitioners convicted for the alleged offences, the decision of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kantabanji in S.C. Case No.83/37 of 2013 was challenged in appeal, which has been allowed partly with the sentences reduced to the period already undergone. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kantabanji at Annexure-2 in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2024 has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the same is not tenable in law.

4. The grounds of challenge against the o