The credibility of witness testimony is critical; inconsistent statements undermine the establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4th April, 2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jagatsinghpur in S.T. Case No.18 of 2006 (28/06) arising out of G.R. Case No.177 of 2003 corresponding to Kujang P.S. Case No.63 of 2003 pending on the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (P), Kujang.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellant (accused) having been convicted for commission of the offence under sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months for commission of offence under section 366 of the ; and rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) year with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 21.04.2003 around 9.30 p.m., this accused, namely, Saroj Das kidnapped the daughter of the informant, who was then aged about fifteen years. She was taken in a Trekker with the help of accused Amar Palei and Purna Chandra Das (since acquitted) so as to be induced to marry this accused.

Basing on the report of the father of the victim, the criminal case being registered and the investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, this accused and two others, namely, Amar and Purna, who have been acquitted, were placed to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 376/366/109/34 of the I.P.C.

3. During Trial, the prosecution, in total, has examined fifteen (15) witnesses. Out of whom, the important are the victim (P.W.7) and her father (P.W.3).

The prosecution, besides leading the above evidence, has proved the several documents, which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 15. Out of the same, the FIR is Ext.1/4 and the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext.14).

4. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence let in by the prosecution, has held that the prosecution has established its case under section 376/366 of the IPC against this accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he has been convicted and sentenced as afore-stated.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the conviction of the accused is based on no evidence. Inviting the attention of this Court to the deposition of the victim (P.W.7), he submitted that when P.W.7 has stated nothing and has resiled from her previous version, the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon her version before the police and the Magistrate recorded under section 161 & 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) respectively as the substantive evidence in fastening the guilt upon the accused that it is he, who had kidnapped the victim and committed rape upon her. He further submitted that on the above sole ground, the finding of guilt against the accused as has been rendered by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent- State, while supporting the finding of guilt against the accused as has been recorded by the Trial Court, submitted that the Trial Court, after proper analysis of the evidence on record, has rightly arrived at the finding of guilt of the accused.

7. Keeping in view the submissions made; I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P