The prosecution failed to prove charges of kidnapping and sexual assault due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and a significant delay in reporting the incident, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

1. The appellant Rajkishore Nayak @ Raju faced trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani in G.R. Case No.25 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter the ‘POCSO Act’) on the accusation that on 04.04.2014 at about 6.00 a.m. at village Padasahi, he kidnapped the victim ‘R.D’ who was a minor girl and committed rape on her and also threatened her not to disclose about the incident otherwise she would be killed.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years on each count for the offence under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year on each count for the offences under sections 363 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report, in short, is that on 04.04.2014 in the early morning, the victim had been to the field of Padasahi to attend the call of nature and while she was returning home, the appellant forcibly took her away from the place of occurrence on his motorcycle and committed rape on her inside a jungle and threatened her not to disclose about the incident, otherwise she would be killed and then the appellant took the victim to his relation’s house and then left her in her house on 06.04.2014.

The first information report was lodged by the father of the victim, namely, Lal Mohan Digal (P.W.2) before the Inspector-in-charge of G. Udayagiri police station on 16.04.2014 and accordingly, G. Udayagiri P.S. Case No.50 dated 16.04.2014 was registered under sections 363/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

P.W.7 Sukumar Hansda, S.I. of police of G. Udayagiri police station investigated the case. He examined the informant and other witnesses, visited the spot and prepared spot map marked as Ext.9 and on 24.04.2014 the victim was sent for medical examination and P.W.6 Dr. Sudipa Das, Associate professor of F.M and T Department of M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur examined her and submitted the report marked as Ext.2/1. The appellant was arrested on 24.05.2014 and he was also sent for medical examination and P.W.4 Dr. Jyotiranjan Jena examined him and submitted the report vide Ext.5. The statement of the victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani. The wearing apparels of the appellant were seized after the medical examination as per seizure list Ext.14. The nail clipping, pubic hair, blood sample, semen of the appellant were also collected by the doctor and it was seized as per seizure list Ext.15 and the seized exhibits were forwarded to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar through Special Judge, Phulbani for chemical examination and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offences under sections 363/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and it is pleaded that there was previous enmity between the family of the informant with the family of the victim, for which a false case has been foisted against him.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses:

P.W.1, the victim stated as to how she was forcibly taken by the appellant and