THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No. 94 of 1995

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code)

Pradeep Sahu ……. Appellant

-Versus-

State ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Dwibedi,

Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 20.11.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.4 of 1995, whereby the petitioner on being convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act, has been sentenced to undergo

R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for four months.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case narrates that on 04.06.1992 around 3.00 P.M. Koili Suna,(victim), the daughter of Lingaraj Suna, who resides in village Kantamal with her father and other family members had been to the village pond to clean utensils. Pradeep Sahu (appellant), who is the son of Rupalal Sahu, all of a sudden came to the pond with the intent to dishonour/outrage her modesty, caught hold of the hand and dragged Koili Suna inside the water and tore away her frock. Koili Suna managed to rescue herself from the grip of the accused and ran away and thereafter informed her parents, besides her brother.

4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant and on the stance of complete denial and claim for trial, he was put to trial after the charges were framed.

5. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined six witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 is the mother of the victim. P.W.2 was the victim, P.W.3 was an immediate post occurrence witness, P.W.4 was the scriber of the FIR, P.W.5 was the father of the victim and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer.

6. The learned trial Court after analysing the entire evidence on record arrived at the following findings:-

“6. P.Ws. 1 and 5 though not the eye witnesses have emphatically said that P.W. 2 came running to the house sobbing althrough and narrated the incident to them. The incident is at 3 PM. and the F.I.R. has been lodged at 5.30 P.M. of the same day. This post- occurrence testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 5 is also a corroborating factor in the evidence of P.W. 2.

P.W 2 has corroborated her F.I.R. version in all respects except the dealing of two slaps by the accused to P.W 2 in the course of dragging of P.W. 2 to the water of the pond. The fact of dealing of slaps by accused to P.W. 2. seem to be an addition in her evidence. Baring and except this addition, the evidence of P.W. 2 has not suffered from any exaggeration. In 1991(33)0.J.D. (Faghu Bhoi & another Vrs. State of Orissa) the Honourable Court have observed:-

"The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 no doubt suffers from exaggeration but that per se does not rendered the evidence unworthy or inacceptable. In their anxiety to be accepted as trueful witness, they appear to be exaggerated and embroidered, unless the exaggeration is of such proportion that it renders the evidence improbable unworthy of acceptance; the Court has a duty to trim off the unnecessary embroidery and exaggeration and found out the truth.

In A.I.R. 1977 S.C. page 1614 (Hanuman Appellant Vs. State of Haryana) the Honourable Court have observed:-

“xxx that the evidence of the complainant is not corroborated as indred it to have been corroborated in view of the fact that she is a prosecutrix in regard to an of under Sec. 354. We see no substance in any of these submissions, xxx”

All men are not equal in their power of reproduction of a fact witnessed by them. Some forget incidence at a short period. Some do not remember the sequence of evidence in order. P.W.3 has nót said in his exami