In rape cases, the victim's testimony is crucial and may suffice for conviction; however, leniency in sentencing may be warranted under certain changed circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2013, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in C.T. No.4 of 2007 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 IPC has been confirmed.

2. The prosecution alleged that on 13.09.2006 when the prosecutrix, who was a 16 years old girl then, was going to her maternal grandfather’s house by bus and she got down from the bus near a tamarind tree. While she was proceeding to her maternal grandfather’s house, the petitioner came in a cycle and offered her lift to the destination. But on her denial, he forcibly made her to sit on the cycle and took her to a nearby Cashew-nut field. There, the petitioner forcibly committed rape and threatened to kill her, lest she disclosed the incident before anybody. In the evening, the petitioner took the victim to the village Tentulikhunti and kept her in his Aunt’s house and again committed rape on her thrice in that house without her consent.

3. On the next day, i.e. on 14.09.2006 morning, the petitioner brought the prosecutrix in the cycle and left her near same tamarind tree from where she was lifted. While doing so, the accused again alleged to had threaten her to take away her life, lest she disclosed the matter before others. Although the prosecutrix went to her maternal grandfather’s house, she did not disclose the matter before anybody out of fear. On 15.09.2006, her mother Pramila came to that place to take her back and on query, the prosecutrix disclosed about the rape by the petitioner before her mother. Her mother further disclosed the same to her husband and eventually called a meeting in the Panchayat. The petitioner’s father participated in the matter but refused to settle the matter. Therefore, the F.I.R. was registered as Tentulikhunti P.S. Case No.59 of 2006.

4. After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and the charge was framed against him for the offences under Sections-376/506 IPC .

5. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses. P.W.15 was the victim whereas P.W.16 is the mother of the victim, who lodged the F.I.R. P.W.19 is the father of the victim. P.W.7 was the Medical Officer, who examined the accused on police requisition whereas P.W.9 was the Medical Officer, who examined the victim. P.W1 is the Aunt of the accused in whose house the victim was kept for one day where the part of the offence had taken place.

6. The testimony of P.W.15 was very categorical, which had been reflected in the F.I.R. The testimony of the said prosecutrix corroborated with the testimony of her mother and father. P.W.1, who is the aunt of the accused, had also confirmed the fact that the accused had stayed with the victim in the night of the occurrence. However, P.Ws. 2, 8 & 11, the villagers had not supported the prosecution case. P.W.9 had confirmed the factum of sexual intercourse being the doctor examining the victim. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 506 as well and convicted him there under.

7. The petitioner was accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) in default to undergo R.I. for further period of one year.

8. Aggrieved by the aforementi