Consent obtained under threat does not equate to valid consent, and delayed reporting may undermine credibility of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Present revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) is at the behest of the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment dated 27^th February, 2024 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 07/15/84 of 2009-17 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur confirming the order of conviction and sentence directed in Sessions Case No. 33/10 of 2006 by a decision dated 4^th March, 2009 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonepur on the grounds inter alia that the same are contrary to law and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 376 ,417,313 and 506 IPC and has been convicted thereunder with a maximum sentence of R.I. of seven years and with fine. In fact, the petitioner has been directed to undergo sentences for the alleged offences separately, but all are to run concurrently with the period of detention to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The order of conviction and sentence imposed by the court of 1st instance has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that an F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2006 with an allegation of rape of the victim at the instance of the petitioner. Upon receiving such a report, Tarva P.S. Case No. 30 was registered under the offences alleged corresponding to G.R. Case No. 96 of 2006 of the file of the learned SDJM, Sonepur and thereafter, upon commitment of the case, it resulted in the order of conviction and sentence and ultimately confirmed in appeal by the learned court below upholding the sentences directed against the petitioner. The details of the circumstances leading to the lodging of the F.I.R. stand narrated therein. The said report was lodged by the victim. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents in order to prove the case, however, no evidence was adduced from the side of the petitioner. Considering the evidence on record, the learned courts below reached at a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of having committed rape on the victim and also other offences including one under Section 313 IPC. The aforesaid decisions at the end of the trial and in the appeal have been challenged on the premise that the same are not legally tenable.

4. The impugned judgments are at Annexures-1 & 2 and legality thereof have been questioned by the petitioner on the following grounds, such as, (a) the order of conviction and sentence confirmed by the learned court below is against the weight of evidence and therefore, the same is liable to be set at naught; (b) the learned courts below have miserably failed to appreciate the evidence received on record in its proper perspective and hence, committed illegality in directing conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences;(c) the evidence of the victim in view of contradictions therein is unreliable to its core and the same has been completely ignored by the learned Sessions Court and hence, the confirmation of conviction and sentence vide Annexure-2 deserves to be set aside; (d) the conviction has been based on hearsay evidence considering the testimony of P.W.18 and hence, it cannot be sustained in law; (e) when the F.I.R. was lodged after more than two years and it has been by the victim, namely, P.W.16, who maintained physical relationship with the petitioner, the case of the prosecution could not have been accepted and so the order of conviction and senten