The court upheld the conviction for rape relying on the victim's credible testimony, supported by medical evidence, despite the lack of independent witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement(Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant- accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) No.09 of 2018 vide judgment dt.10.09.2019. Vide the impugned judgment, Appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 376(1) and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for 12 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- , in default, R.I for 1(one) year for the offence under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C and S.I for 1(one) month for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. Both the offences were directed to run concurrently.

3. While assailing the impugned order of conviction and sentence, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the prosecution was set into motion with lodging of the F.I.R, giving rise to Industrial P.S (Nisha) Case No.111 of 2017. The aforesaid case was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376(2 )(m) and Section 307 of the I.P.C.

3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the Appellant faced the trial after being charged for the aforesaid offence under Sections 376(2)(m)/323 of the I.P.C. Prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R reads as follows:

Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the victim is an old woman of 80 years and the accused is a young boy of 25 years and both belong to the same village. The accused is also a married person having his wife. On 11.9.2017 at about 8.30 A.M. in the morning the victim had been to village pond to take bath. While taking bath sitting on a stone, the accused reached there, forcibly committed rape on her and assaulted her by means of stone, as a result of which she sustained injury on her person. Some villagers who were returning from the jungle seeing the condition of the victim gave Intimation to the informant and his family members after which they rushed to the spot, rescued the victim and sent her to the hospital for medical examination. The victim narrated the whole incident before the informant and her other family members. After such incident, the informant went to police station on the same day and lodged the written report at about 11.00 PM. On the basis of the written report of the informant Kutartha Nath, Police registered Industrial P.S (Nisha) case No. 111/2017, u/s.376(2)(m) and 307, IPC against the accused.

3.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that prosecution in order to prove the charges examined 18 nos. of witnesses. While P.W.1 is the Informant, P.W.2 is a co-villager and P.Ws.3 & 4 are the daughter–in-law of the victim. P.W.5 is the victim herself, P.Ws.6 & 7 are the Constables, who took the accused for medical examination. Similarly, P.W.8 is the Constable, who took the victim for her medical examination. P.Ws.9 & 10 are the independent witnesses/witnesses to the seizure. Similarly, P.Ws.11 & 13 are the Constables/witnesses to the seizure of biological samples of the victim. P.Ws.12 & 18 are the Doctors, who examined the victim and P.W.14 is the Doctor, who examined the accused. P.W.15 is the post-occurrence witness and P.Ws.16 & 17 are the I.Os of the case.

3.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently contended that even though the victim by the time the alleged offence took place was 80 years old, but the Doctor who examined the victim, namely; P.W.18 came to a finding that the injury found on the victim was not due to the assault made by the Appellant while committing the offence of rape. P.W.12, who also examined the