While declining to interfere with the order of conviction passed against the appellant for raping an elderly old woman, the Orissa High Court (Cuttack Bench) has taken into account the age of the victim (80 years) vis-à-vis the age of the appellant (accused – 25 years), to hold that the ends of justice will be met if the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The Court accordingly modified the sentence, imposing the minimum sentence of 10 years in place of 12 years on the Appellant for the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy observed that prosecution examined 18 witnesses to prove the charges, including the informant, the victim, and the medical officers, and the victim in her deposition clearly proved the allegation of rape committed on her by the accused, stating that the accused dragged her away and assaulted her with a stone.
The Bench found that the prosecution witness, who examined the victim, found bodily injuries suggesting forcible sexual intercourse, noting that the vagina was very tender and congested with blood oozed out, alongside multiple abrasive wounds on the forehead. The witness said there was sign and symptom of recent sexual intercourse within 48 hours of the examination.
The Bench noted that the Senior Medical Officer, found an abrasion over the left side of the forehead and a bruise over the right-side breast, opining that both injuries were possible in case of assault by means of a stone. Prosecution witness, who examined the accused, found features of recent sexual intercourse within 24 hours, including mated pubic hair, dried stains of semen, and swollen genital skin, along with lacerations on the nose and right shin.
Even though no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. The Bench further observed that there is no material placed to disbelieve the statement of prosecution witness, noting that a lady of 80 years will not depose falsehood about the charge against a boy of 26 years. Taking into account the statement of the victim vis-à-vis the statements of prosecution witnesses, the Bench held that the prosecution proved the charge of rape on the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Briefly, the victim is an old woman of 80 years and the accused is a young boy of 25 years, both belonging to the same village, with the accused being a married person. In 2017, the victim had been to the village pond to take a bath. While taking a bath sitting on a stone, the accused reached there, dragged her away to a distance, forcibly committed rape on her, and assaulted her by means of a stone on her head, face, and other parts of her body, as a result of which she sustained bleeding injuries and lost her sense.
Some villagers returning from the jungle saw the condition of the victim and gave intimation to the informant (the victim’s grandson) and his family members, who rushed to the spot, rescued the victim, and sent her to the hospital for medical examination. The informant lodged a written report at the police station on the same day, leading to the registration of case under Sections 376(2)(m) and 307 of the IPC.
The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376(1) and Section 323 of the IPC, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 376(1), and simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
Appearances:
Advocate S. Dash, for the Appellant
Advocate P.K. Panda, for the Respondent
