Orissa High Court
Sibaram Das vs State Of Orissa on 31 August, 2017
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLA No. 431 Of 2007
From the judgment and order dated 01.09.2007 passed by the
Asst. Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. No.11/3 of 2007.
------------------------------
Sibaram Das ......... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ......... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Anirudha Das
(Amicus curiae)
For Respondent: - Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain
Addl. Standing Counsel
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 31.08.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. SAHOO, J.A nine year old girl completely unbothered unperturbed about the world around her was enjoying the morning play on the village street. She was unaware that the lustful eyes of the appellant were watching her from close quarters like a vulture's prey. Suddenly she was captured by the licentious felon and ravished. To suppress the horrendous crime, she was offered with biscuits, chocolates and some money. She 2 was even threatened to be killed. The matter would have gone unnoticed but the destiny had its own plans. The mother of the victim detected biscuits and chocolates in the school bag of the victim. The foodstuffs which were given to suppress the demonic act opened the pandora box for detection of the crime.
The appellant Sibaram Das faced trial in the Court of learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. No.11/3 of 2007 for the offences punishable under sections 366-A, 376(2)(f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation of taking the victim who was a minor girl aged about nine years to his house on 24.07.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. knowing that she was likely to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, committed rape on her and also criminally intimidated her by threatening with injury to her person with intent to cause alarm to her.
The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.09.2007 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand only), in default, to undergo R.I. for one year under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and the substantive sentences were directed to run currently.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant was residing in Lal Building Basti, Barasuan and the house of the victim was also situated in the same Basti. The father of the victim namely Marshalen Lugun (P.W.3) was a dumper driver and the mother of the victim namely Smt. Bahalen Lugun (P.W.1) was doing labour works. At the time of occurrence, the victim girl was prosecuting her study in Class IV and she was aged about nine years. On 24.07.2006 the appellant called the victim to his house offering her biscuits and chocolates and thereafter took her inside the house, laid her on a cot after removing her chadi and then he removed his pant and committed sexual intercourse. The victim shouted due to pain for which the appellant gauged her mouth and told her not to disclose the incident before anybody and he also threatened the victim that in the event she discloses the incident to anybody, she would be thrown from the roof of the house. On the next day 4 i.e. on 25.07.2006, the appellant again called the victim offering biscuits, chocolates etc. and committed similar act. The appellant gave a sum of Rs.30/- on the first day besides biscuits, chocolates etc. and Rs.20/- on the second day besides chocolates, biscuits etc. and on third day he offered the victim a sum of Rs.10/- and asked him to distribute biscuits, chocolates to her friends. When P.W.1, the mother of the victim detected biscuits, chocolates in the bag of the victim and asked her wherefrom she brought the same, she narrated the incident in detail to her mother. P.W.3 who is the father of the victim was not present at that point of time and he returned in the evening hours on 28.07.2006 and P.W.1 disclosed before him what the victim had told her. P.W.3 in turn disclosed the incident before other villagers and the villagers caught hold of the appellant on 29.07.2006 and asked him about the incident. The appellant confessed to have committed the act in presence of the villagers.
On 30.07.2006 a written report was lodged by P.W.1 in connection with the case at Barsuan beat house. P.W.15 who was the A.S.I. of Police attached to Tensa outpost under Lahunipara police station treated the report submitted by P.W.1 as the first information report and started preliminary 5 investigation of the case. He sent the F.I.R. to Lahunipara police station for formal registration of the case and also started investigation. During course of investigation, he examined the informant, victim and other witnesses at the spot, visited the place of occurrence, prepared the spot map (Ext.12) and he seized the wearing dresses of the victim on being produced by P.W.1 under seizure list Ext.2. He sent the victim to Lahunipara C.H.C. along with a constable and two lady home guards for medical examination. He arrested the appellant, seized his wearing apparels under seizure list (Ext.4) and produced him before P.W.16 Sileverous Toppo who was the S.I. of police attached to Lahunipara police station who after registering the F.I.R. as Lahunipara P.S. Case No.97 of 2006 on 30.07.2006 under sections 366-A/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, took up investigation of the case and forwarded the appellant to Court on 31.07.2006 after his medical examination and collection of sample blood, sample semen and sample pubic hair. During course of investigation, P.W.16 reexamined the victim, her parents, visited the spot, examined the witnesses, seized the vaginal swab and blood sample of the victim collected by the Medical Officer and also one command certificate no.43. He 6 received the papers from P.W.15 and also the medical examination report of the appellant. He made a prayer to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bonai to dispatch the seized articles to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur for chemical examination and opinion and he received the x-ray films in respect of the victim from S.D.M.O., Bonai and produced before the Medical Officer, Lahunipara C.H.C. for opinion regarding the age of the victim. He also received the medical examination report of the victim from Medical Officer, Lahunipara C.H.C. and seized the school admission register of the victim. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 19.09.2006 under sections 366-A/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned Trial Court charged the appellant under sections 366-A, 376(2)(f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 23.05.2007 and since the appellant refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.
7
4. The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial and it was pleaded by the appellant that his house is adjacent to the house of the victim and since the parents of the victim constructed a house in a close proximity to his house and he objected to the same for which there was dissention between them and for that reason, a false case has been foisted against him. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.
5. During course of trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses.
P.W.1 Smt. Bahalan Lugun is the mother of the deceased and she has stated about the disclosure made by the victim regarding commission of rape by the appellant. She is the informant in this case and she is also a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the victim under seizure list Ext.2.
P.W.2 is the victim and she stated the occurrence in detail that took place on 24/25.07.2006.
P.W.3 Marshalen Lugun is the father of the victim and he has stated about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant in his presence and also in the presence of the villagers. He accompanied his wife (P.W.1) and the victim (P.W.2) to the Lahunipara P.H.C. for her medical examination. 8
P.W.4 Anand Jayamasi Oriya stated about the disclosure made by the victim about the incident and he has further stated about the seizure of the wearing apparels of the victim and also one bed sheet, one lungi, one ganji of the appellant under seizure list Ext.4.
P.W.5 Bijay Singh also stated about the disclosure made by the victim about the incident and the extra judicial confession of the appellant.
P.W.6 Muliani Sanga stated about the disclosure made by the victim regarding the occurrence and also the confession made by the appellant before the villagers.
P.W.7 Phula Singh stated about the seizure of wearing apparels of the victim under seizure list Ext.2.
P.W.8 B. Madhusudan Pillei stated about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant and also the seizure of the wearing apparels of the appellant under seizure list Ext.4 and seizure of vials produced by the constable under seizure lists Exts.5 and 6.
P.W.9 Ruben Minz was the Headmaster of Bishop Herman Mission School at Bursuan who stated about the seizure of the school admission register by the investigating officer 9 under seizure list Ext.7 and he stated on verification that the date of birth of the victim was on 03.02.1998. He further stated about taking the admission register in his zima.
P.W.10 Manjubala Patra was working as woman home guard who took the victim to Luhunipara hospital for medical examination.
P.W.11 Biman Banerjee was working as a teacher in the Bishop Herman Mission School at Bursuan and he also stated about the seizure of the school admission register under seizure list Ext.7 and he further stated about the date of birth of the victim as noted in the school admission register to be 03.02.1998.
P.W.12 Kishore Chandra Patra was the constable who accompanied the A.S.I. of police to the spot and accompanied the victim for her medical examination and produced the collected samples in sealed condition after the examination of the victim before the police.
P.W.13 Dr. Archana Behera examined the victim on 30.07.2006 and she proved the medical examination report (Ext.9) and she also gave opinion regarding the age of the victim 10 to be five to ten years after going through the x-ray films produced before her.
P.W.14 Dr. Abanindra Mishra was attached to Lahunipara C.H.C. as specialist and he examined the appellant on 31.07.2006 and submitted his report under Ext.11.
P.W.15 Madan Mohan Naik was the A.S.I. of police attached to Tensa outpost and he conducted investigation in part.
P.W.16 Sileverous Toppo was the S.I. of police attached to Lahunipara Police Station and he is the investigating officer in this case.
The prosecution proved fifteen documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Exts. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the seizure lists, Ext.3 is the signature of P.W.3, Ext.8 is the zimanama, Ext.9 is the medical report, Ext.10 is the medical opinion, Ext.11 is the medical report of accused Sibaram Das, Ext.12 is the spot map, Ext.13 is the forwarding report of seized articles, Ext.14 is the medical requisition and Ext.15 is the chemical examination report.
The prosecution also proved six materials objects. M.O.I is the skirt, M.O.II is the semiz, M.O.III is the chadi, 11 M.O.IV is the bed sheet, M.O.V is the lungi and M.O. VI is the ganji.
6. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue the matter and it is a ten years old appeal where the appellant is in custody for more than ten years, Mr. Anirudha Das, was appointed as amicus curiae. He was supplied with the paper books and he placed the evidence of the witnesses and also the impugned judgment. While assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, Mr. Das contended that the medical examination report of the victim falsifies the evidence of the victim regarding commission of rape inasmuch as the doctor (P.W.13) has stated that she did not find any bodily injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse and there was also no sign of recent sexual intercourse on examination of the private genital. It is further contended that even the medical examination report of the appellant which was done on 31.07.2006 by P.W.14 is totally silent regarding any injury. Learned counsel further contended that there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and the victim also disclosed about the incident at the belated stage and therefore, the entire prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion and 12 benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. He placed reliance in the case of Rahim Beg -Vrs.- State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 1973 SC 343.
Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the victim was aged about nine years and she was a student of class IV at the time of occurrence which has been duly proved not only by the victim and also her parents and through documentary evidence by the Headmaster and a teacher of the school where she was prosecuting her studies. He further submitted that the victim's evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy and there was no earthly reason for the victim or her parents to falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of this nature. He further submitted that since there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and medical examination of the victim, absence of any injury on the victim cannot be a factor to doubt the veracity of the victim. He further stated that since the father of the victim was absent from the house and he returned in the evening hours on 28.07.2006 and after coming to know about the incident and after being confirmed from the appellant who confessed his guilt in presence of the villagers, the case was instituted and 13 therefore, the delay is not a factor in such type of offences to disbelieve the prosecution case.
7. The learned Trial Court after assessing the evidence on record has been pleased to observe that from the F.I.R. and from the evidence of the witnesses, it clearly reveals that the incident took place on 24th & 25th of July 2006 which came to the notice of the mother of the victim on 28th July 2006 and the fact was disclosed before the villagers on 29th July 2006 and the appellant confessed his guilt in presence of the villagers and accordingly the report was lodged before the police in the morning on 30.07.2006 and therefore, there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The learned Trial Court has also discarded the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defence that there was any suppression of the earlier first information report. The learned Trial Court further held that the disclosure was not made immediately as the victim was a minor girl who was allured by the appellant by giving biscuits and chocolates and subsequently she was also threatened to be thrown from the roof of the house if she discloses about the incident before anybody. About the absence of injury on the victim, the learned Trial Court relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble 14 Supreme Court in case of State of Tamilnadu -Vrs.- Ravi @ Nehru reported in 2006 (3) Crimes 17 (S.C) wherein it was held that to constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. Another decision of this Court in the case of Ananda Palei -Vrs- State of Orissa reported in (2006) 34 Orissa Criminal Reports 680 was relied upon wherein it was held that the depth of penetration is immaterial so also the rupture of the hymen and it is not necessary that the seminal fluid has to flow and the hymen must be ruptured in order to constitute an offence of rape. The learned Trial Court also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan -Vrs.- N.K.- The Accused reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1812 wherein it is held that the injuries which the prosecutrix suffered or might have suffered in defending herself and offering resistance to the accused were abrasions or bruises which would heal up in ordinary course of nature within two to three days of the incident. The absence of 15 any visible marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical examination would not necessarily mean that she had not suffered any injuries or that she had offered no resistance at the time of commission of the crime. Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegation or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix.
The learned Trial Court also considered the fact that the victim was ravished on 24th & 25th July 2006 whereas the medical officer examined her on 30th July 2006 and the medical officer has opined that the injuries can be healed up within five to six days in ordinary course taking into the size and nature of injuries. It was further held that the prosecutrix has stated that the appellant inserted the penis in her vagina and when she shouted due to pain, the appellant gauged her mouth and threatened her and she has not stated further act of penetration of the penis of the appellant inside her vagina emitting semen. The learned Trial Court also considered about the delay in lodging the F.I.R. aspect and he observed that in Indian tradition conservative society and more specifically a girl who hails from a remote village and a poor family cannot speak lie against the 16 appellant rendering her prestige and chastity at stake. The learned Trial Court took into account the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from P.W.3 to P.W.8 which revealed that the appellant confessed before them to have committed rape on the victim and therefore, held the extra judicial confession to be very important. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire evidence came to hold that the prosecution unequivocally revealed that the appellant induced the minor girl by offering biscuits, chocolates etc. on 24th July 2006 and committed rape on her inside the house and subsequently also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody or else to throw her from the roof of the house. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and the documents proved, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the offences under sections 366-A/376 2(f)/506(1) of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on going through the impugned judgment, so far the age of the victim at the time of occurrence is concerned, the victim has stated her age at the 17 time of her deposition to be ten years and she has stated that the occurrence took place a year back and she was prosecuting her study in Class-IV at that point of time. The mother of the victim was examined as P.W.1 and she has stated that the victim was prosecuting her study in Class-IV at the time of alleged occurrence and her age was nine years. The Headmaster of the school where the victim was prosecuting her studies was examined as P.W. 9 and he proved the seizure of school admission register of Bishop Herman Mission School which indicates that the date of birth of the victim was 03.02.1998. Similar statement has been made by another teacher of the school who has been examined as P.W.11. All these evidence has practically remained unchallenged. Therefore, the ocular evidence coupled led by the prosecution coupled with the documentary evidence clearly establish that at the time of the occurrence, the victim was aged about nine years.
So far as occurrence part is concerned, the victim has stated being examined as P.W.2 that the appellant called her to his house offering biscuits and chocolates and thereafter took her inside his house, laid her on a cot after removing her Chadi and he after removing his paint inserted his penis inside her 18 vagina and when she shouted due to pain, he gauged her mouth and told her not to disclose the incident before anybody and the appellant further threatened her to throw her from the roof of the house. She further stated that her mother had gone to the labour work and on the next day also, the appellant called her offering biscuits, chocolates etc. and committed similar act and the appellant paid her Rs.30/- on the first day besides biscuits and chocolates etc., Rs. 20/- on the second day besides biscuits and chocolates etc. and Rs.10/- on the third day telling her to distribute the biscuits, chocolates to her friends. Subsequent to one day, her mother detected the biscuits, chocolates in her bag and asked her and then she narrated about the incident to her mother. The victim has been cross examined at length and in the cross-examination, she has stated that slight blood oozed from her private part for the act done by the appellant on the first day and she did not notice any injury on her private part. She further stated that two days after the third incident, she disclosed to her mother voluntarily. She further stated that she did not go to the School on the dates of the incident and she had washed out her wearing dress by applying surf and she had disclosed the incident to her mother as well as to the police. She further stated 19 that there was no blood stain in her vagina when her mother saw it and she further stated that she did not sustain any visible injury when the accused did the alleged act on her and her wearing apparels were also not torn. The evidence of the victim regarding disclosure of the incident is corroborated by her mother P.W.1.
P.W.1 has stated that when on 28th July 2006 evening at about 7.00 to 8.00 p.m., she noticed biscuits, chocolates etc. inside the bag of the victim and she suspected the articles might have been brought by theft or otherwise for which she asked the victim daughter that where from she brought those articles and on being asked, the victim narrated about the incident. P.W.1 has stated that on hearing about the incident, she had seen the private part of the victim and found the vagina to be reddish in colour. She was cross examined at length and in the cross examination, she has stated that as the victim had already washed her clothes and she did not notice any blood on her wearing dress and she has further stated that she did not notice any injury mark on the body of the victim daughter except the reddish mark on her private part. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross examination of either 20 P.W.1 or P.W. 2 to discard their evidence. The doctor (P.W.13) who examined the victim on 30.07.2006 has stated that there was no bodily injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse and there was no physical clue suggestive of sexual intercourse and there was no sign and symptoms of recent sexual intercourse on examination of the private genital of the victim. She collected the vaginal swab in vial and sealed and signed and after going through the X-ray films, she opined that the age of the victim to be in between five to ten years. P.W.13 has categorically stated that depending upon the size of the injury, the same can be healed within five to six days in ordinary course.
The case of Rahim Beg -Vrs.- State of U.P. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is a case under sections 302/376/404 of the Indian Penal Code and in that case the occurrence in question took place on 3rd August 1969 and the two accused persons were examined by doctor on 5th August 1969 and since there was no injury sustained by the victim as well as by the accused on medical examination, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe that if the girl was 10 to 12 years who is a virgin and whose hymen was intact is subjected to rape by a fully developed man there are likely to be 21 injuries on the male organ of the man. No injury was, however, detected by the doctor on the male organ of any of the two accused. The absence of such injuries on the male organs of the accused would thus point to their innocence.
The factual aspect of the present case is completely different than the case of Rahim Beg (supra). In this case, the occurrence in question took place on 24th as well as 25th July 2006 and there is absence of any evidence that there was complete penetration of the penis inside the vagina of the victim or any kind of protest by the victim. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the victim was allured by the appellant and given the biscuits and chocolates and also some cash and was threatened and when attempt was made for the first time, she felt pain and thereafter there is no material that on that first date, the appellant continued to commit sexual intercourse or discharged any semen. Rather the evidence is that when the victim shouted due to pain, the appellant asked her not to disclose the incident. Therefore, when there was no physical protest from the victim and there was absence of evidence relating to complete penetration and the victim was examined about five days after the incident, in view of the evidence of the doctor that possibility 22 of healing of the injuries in ordinary course cannot be ruled out is a factor which is to be taken into consideration. Every case depends upon its facts and circumstances and in this particular case, when the mother being examined as P.W.1 has stated that she noticed reddish mark on the private part on 28th July 2006, therefore, it cannot be said that the non-finding of any injury by the doctor (P.W.13) on the victim on 30.07.2006 as well as on the accused on 31.07.2006 by P.W.14 are the factors which would falsify the entire prosecution case. The evidence of the victim is clinching and law is well settled that even in absence of any medical evidence in a case of rape, if the evidence of the victim is found to be trustworthy then also the Court can act upon such evidence and convict the accused.
In this case, apart from the statement of the victim which is corroborated by her mother, there are materials relating to extrajudicial confession by the appellant before the co- villagers and the appellant begged excuse from the villagers. The wearing apparels of the victim were sent for chemical analysis and the Chadi which has been marked as 'A', the brown colour semij which was marked as 'B', the skirt which was marked as 'C' and the vaginal swab of the victim which was marked as 'F' as 23 per the chemical analysis report, human blood was detected in the exhibits marked as 'A, B, C & F. In view of such ocular evidence, the chemical analysis report, it cannot be said that there is any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case relating to the commission of rape by the appellant on the victim.
Even though the F.I.R. has been lodged about six days after the occurrence but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the occurrence took place on 24.07.2006 and the victim did not disclose before her mother immediately as not only she was given biscuits, chocolates and cash but she was also threatened and when her mother detected the biscuits, chocolates inside her school bag and when the victim was confronted, she could disclose about the incident before her mother on 28th July 2006 and on that night when the father of the victim (P.W.3) returned home, he was also told about the incident and on the next day, the appellant was confronted and he confessed his guilt before the villagers in presence of P.W.3 and thereafter on 30.07.2006, the F.I.R. has been lodged. Therefore, in the factual scenario, it cannot be said that there is any inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. or delay, if any, falsifies the prosecution case. 24
Therefore, in view of the available materials on record and going through the impugned judgment, I find that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court is quite justified and there is no infirmity and or illegality in the same. Accordingly, I am of the view that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court under sections 366-A/376(2)(f)/506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant has been awarded sentence which cannot be said to be excessive. As it appears, the appellant was taken into custody in connection with this case and forwarded to Court on 31.07.2006 and he was released on bail on 16.11.2006 and therefore, he had remained in custody for about three months 15 days while the matter was under investigation and after submission of charge sheet. After the pronouncement of judgment on 01.09.2007, till date he has almost completed ten years of substantive sentence as he was not granted bail during pendency of appeal. Taking into account the concurrent sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and the period of remission, if he has already undergone the sentence, he should be released forthwith, if he is not otherwise required in any other case. 25
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and the sentence passed thereunder stands confirmed.
9. In view of the enactment of the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, keeping in view the age of the victim at the time of occurrence and the nature and gravity of the offence committed and the family background, I feel it necessary to recommend the case of the victim to District Legal Services Authority, Sundargarh to examine the case of the victim after conducting the necessary enquiry in accordance with law for grant of compensation under the Orissa Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012.
Let a copy of the order be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, Sundargarh for compliance.
Lower Court's record with a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.
10. Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Mr. Anirudha Das, the learned Amicus Curiae for rendering his valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned Amicus 26 Curiae shall be entitled to his professional fees which is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.
11. Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st August, 2017/Sukanta/Kabita