Orissa High Court
Rajesh Mukhi vs State Of Odisha on 7 September, 2022
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
JCRLA No.38 OF 2016
From judgment and order dated 27.05.2016 passed by the
Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Phulbani in G.R. Case No.47
of 2014/T.R. No.38 of 2014.
---------------------------
Rajesh Mukhi ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Anirudha Das
Amicus Curiae
For Respondent: - Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo
Addl. Standing Advocate
---------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 07.09.2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. The appellant Rajesh Mukhi faced trial in the Court of
learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Phulbani in G.R.
Case No.47 of 2014/T.R. No.38 of 2014 for commission of
offences punishable under sections 376(2)(i)/323/307 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Protection of Children from
// 2 //
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter 'POCSO Act') on the
accusation that on 07.08.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. at village
Rutungia, he committed rape on the victim, who was a minor girl
and voluntarily caused hurt to Gajapati Nayak (P.W.5), the
grandfather of the victim and also assaulted P.W.5 with a lathi on
his head with intention to commit his murder and that he
committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 27.05.2016 found that the prosecution has not been
established the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, however, found the appellant guilty under sections
376(2)(i)/323 of the Indian Penal Code and 6 of the POCSO Act
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for twelve years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand), in default, to undergo further
R.I. for one year for the offence under section 376(2)(i) of the
Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year for the offence under
section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were
directed to run concurrently. No separate sentence was awarded
for the conviction of the appellant under section 6 of the POCSO
Act in view of the provision under section 42 of the said Act.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant
was staying since two weeks prior to the date of occurrence in his
in-laws' house in village Rutungia which is also the village of the
Page 2 of 23
// 3 //
victim (P.W.1). On 07.08.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., the victim was
playing on a heap of sand along with her friends in her village.
The appellant came near the victim, caught hold of her, embraced
her body and committed rape on her by inserting finger into her
vagina. While the occurrence was going on, P.W.5, the
grandfather of the victim came to the place of occurrence and
when he tried to rescue the victim, the appellant assaulted him
with a lathi for which he sustained injuries. The grandmother of
the victim arrived there and the victim was taken to the house
where she disclosed about the entire incident. The grandmother
wiped out the blood from the thigh of the victim with her pant. At
the time of occurrence, the parents of the victim were absent and
they had gone for grazing of the cows and when they returned
back home and came to know about the occurrence, the victim
was taken to the Balliguda police station where the first
information report was lodged on 08.08.2014 by the father of the
victim Kaira Nayak (P.W.3).
On the basis of such first information report, Balliguda
P.S. Case No.102 dated 08.08.2014 was registered under sections
376(2)(f)/325/307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the
POCSO Act.
P.W.13 Sambari Hansdah, S.I. of Police, Balliguda
police station took up investigation of the case and during course
Page 3 of 23
// 4 //
of investigation, she examined the informant and the witnesses,
issued injury requisition for the injured (P.W.5), the wearing
apparels of the victim were seized by P.W.13 on the production of
her mother as per seizure list Ext.3, one lathi and two outdoor
tickets were seized on the production of the informant as per
seizure list Ext.2 and on the date of lodging of the first
information report itself, the victim was sent to S.D.H., Balliguda
for her medical examination and the doctor after examining the
victim submitted the medical examination report (Ext.4/1). The
I.O. visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ext.16) and the
appellant was taken into custody on the date of lodging of F.I.R.
and he was also examined medically at S.D.H., Balliguda. The
statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
on the prayer of the Investigating Officer by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Balliguda as per direction of the learned Special Judge, Phulbani
and the exhibits were forwarded to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh,
Bhubaneswar for chemical examination. The I.O. received the
medical examination report and ossification test report of the
victim from M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur.
She also seized the admission register of Rutungia Anganwadi
center as per seizure list Ext.22 and gave the admission register
in the zima of one of the employees of the Anganwadi centre as
per zimanama Ext.23. The I.O. also received the injury report of
Page 4 of 23
// 5 //
the injured (P.W.5), made some query to the doctor regarding
possibility of injury on P.W.5 with such weapon and received the
query report. On 10.09.2014, P.W.13 handed over charge of
investigation to the Inspector in-charge of Balliguda police station
Ashutosh Mishra (P.W.10), who completed the investigation and
submitted charge sheet on 20.09.2014 against the appellant
under sections 376(2)(f)/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code and
section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. After submission of charge sheet, the learned trial
Court framed charges against the appellant and since the
appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute
him and establish his guilt.
4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the
prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses.
P.W.1 is the victim. She supported the prosecution
case and stated about the commission of rape on her by the
appellant.
P.W.2 Laibeni Nayak is the mother of the victim and
she stated that on the date of occurrence, she and her husband
returned home after grazing the cows and came to know about
the incident from her parents-in-laws and they took the injured
(P.W.5) and the victim for medical examination. She has
Page 5 of 23
// 6 //
specifically answered to the question put by the Court that the
appellant 'Jakila' on the private part of the victim and 'Jakila'
means in the local language 'intercourse'.
P.W.3 Kaira Nayak is the informant of the case and he
is the father of the victim (P.W.1). He stated that on the date of
occurrence, he along with his wife had been to graze cows in the
nearby jungle and on their return, he heard commotion in her
village and thereafter, he went to his house and noticed the blood
was coming out from the vagina of the victim and her chadi was
soaked with blood. He also noticed that his injured father (P.W.5)
sustained bleeding injury on his head and blood was coming out
from his wound. He enquired about the alleged incident from his
parents and came to know from P.W.5 about the commission of
rape on the victim and the appellant assaulting P.W.5 on his head
by means of a thenga and his mother told him that she had
brought the victim from the place of occurrence and she made
her blood clean. He further stated that he took the victim to the
hospital and the victim was five years at the time of occurrence.
P.W.4 Bhagirathi Baliarsingh is the scribe of the F.I.R.
(Ext.1).
P.W.5 Gajapati Nayak is an eye witness so also
injured in the case and he is the grandfather of the victim
(P.W.1). He stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, the
Page 6 of 23
// 7 //
parents of the victim had gone to graze cows in the nearby jungle
and when he returned home from the nearby shop carrying some
grocery articles, he enquired about the victim from his wife and
came to know that the victim was playing. He proceeded to the
place of occurrence and saw the appellant had opened his pant
and torn the pant of the victim and he also saw the appellant
committing intercourse with the victim and when he asked the
appellant about the incident, the appellant all on a sudden
inflicted lathi blow on his head for which he fell down on the
ground and thereafter, his wife came there and took the victim to
their house and he narrated the entire incident before the parents
of the victim. He further stated that the blood was coming out
from his injuries and on the next day of occurrence, he went to
the hospital for treatment.
P.W.6 Dr. Smita Marandi was the O. & G. Specialist of
S.D.H., Balliguda, who medically examined the injured (P.W.5) on
police requisition and proved the injury report and query report
vide Exts.5 and 7 respectively.
P.W.7 Dr. Subarna Kumar Mallick was the Assistant
Surgeon of S.D.H. Balliguda, who medically examined the
appellant on police requisition and proved the medical
examination report vide Ext.9.
Page 7 of 23
// 8 //
P.W.8 Paul Naik was the Havildar attached to
Balliguda police station and also a witness to the seizure. He
stated that on 08.08.2014, as per the direction of the Inspector
in-charge of Balliguda police station, he accompanied with the
appellant for his medical examination to S.D.H., Balliguda and
after examination of the appellant, he collected three sealed
bottles from the treating doctor and handed over the same to the
I.O. (P.W.13) and she seized the same along with his command
certificate vide seizure lists Exts.11 and 12 respectively.
P.W.9 Namita Ghantal was the constable attached to
Balliguda police station and also a witness to the seizure of one
brown colour pant of the victim, one wooden stick and grey colour
pant of the appellant, three numbers of glass bottles and sealed
envelope and one command certificate vide seizure lists Exts.3, 2,
13, 11 and 14 respectively.
P.W.10 Asutosh Mishra was the Inspector in-charge of
Balliguda police station, who on the direction of D.I. (S.R.), took
up charge of investigation of the case from P.W.13 and on
completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
P.W.11 Dr. Sudeepa Das was the Associate Professor
of M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, who
medically examined the victim (P.W.1) on police requisition and
proved the medical examination report vide Ext.4/1.
Page 8 of 23
// 9 //
P.W.12 Ganeswar Digal is an eye witness to the
occurrence. He stated that at the time of incident, he was
standing near the Katrikia chhak and saw the appellant inflicted
stick blow on the head of the injured (P.W.5) as a result of which
he fell down. He further stated that he enquired about the
incident from the appellant but he ran away.
P.W.13 Sambari Hansdah was the S.I. of Police
attached to Balliguda police station and she is the Investigating
Officer of the case and on being transferred, she handed over the
charge to the Inspector in-charge of Balliguda police station
(P.W.10).
The prosecution exhibited twenty three numbers of
documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the seizure list of one lathi
and two outdoor tickets, Ext.3 is the seizure list of the wearing
apparels of the victim, Ext.4/1 is the medical examination report
of the victim, Ext.5 is the injury report of injured (P.W.5), Ext.6 is
the police requisition of P.W.6, Ext.7 is the query report prepared
by P.W.6, Ext.8 is the query requisition, Ext.9 is the medical
examination report of the appellant, Ext.10 is the requisition of
the appellant, Ext.11 is the seizure list of one sealed vial
containing semen, one sealed vial containing saliva and one
sealed vial containing pubic hair of the appellant, Ext.12 is the
command certificate, Ext.13 is the seizure list of one grey colour
Page 9 of 23
// 10 //
full jean pant of the appellant, Ext.14 is the seizure list of one
sealed envelope containing soak dried perineal swab and one
command certificate of P.W.8, Ext.15 is the medical requisition of
victim, Ext.16 is the spot map, Ext.17 is the prayer for recording
of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim, Ext.18 is the command
certificate, Ext.19 is the prayer for sending the seized exhibits to
S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, Ext.20 is the forwarding
report, Ext.21 is the acknowledgment of forwarding of seized
exhibits, Ext.22 is the seizure list of admission register of
Rutungia Anganwadi centre and Ext.23 is the zimanama.
5. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and
it was pleaded that on account of land dispute, he has been
falsely entangled in the case.
No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.
6. The learned trial Court while assessing the oral as well
as documentary evidence on record has been pleased to
formulate the following points for determination:
(i) Whether on 07.08.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. at
village Rutungia, on a heap of sand, the accused
committed rape on the victim who is under
sixteen years of age?
Page 10 of 23
// 11 //
(ii) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and
place, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to
Gajapati Nayak?
(iii) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and
place, the accused dealt a thenga blow on the
head of Gajapati Naik with intent to cause his
death?
(iv) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and
place, the accused committed aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on victim who is a child
below the age of twelve years?
The learned trial Court mainly relied upon the
evidence of the victim (P.W.1), her parents P.W.2 and P.W.3 and
the injured P.W.5 to come to a conclusion that the appellant
inserted finger into the vagina of P.W.1 and the evidence of her
has not been discredited. The learned trial Court also placed
reliance on the evidence of the doctor, who examined the victim
and has been pleased to hold that the evidence of the P.Ws.1, 2,
3 and 5 are found to be natural, trustworthy and worthy of being
relied upon and from such evidence, the prosecution has brought
out the charge under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code
and section 6 of the POCSO Act home beyond all reasonable
doubt.
Page 11 of 23
// 12 //
So far as charges under sections 307 and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code are concerned, taking into account the
evidence of the injured (P.W.5) and the evidence of the doctor,
who noticed three simple injuries on the person of P.W.5, it was
held that there is no justification to convict the appellant under
section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of existing
material, however, the Court found sufficient material for the
offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
accordingly, while acquitting the appellant of the charge under
section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, he was found guilty under
sections 376(2)(i)/323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of
the POCSO Act.
7. Mr. Anirudha Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing
for the appellant contended that the evidence of the victim
(P.W.1) indicates that at the time of occurrence, she was playing
with her three friends, namely, Madhaba, Bikash and Indu in the
evening hours but none of them have been examined to
corroborate the evidence of the victim. Though the victim stated
that the appellant came and embraced her, laid her down over
the sand and inserted his finger into her vagina but the mother of
the victim being examined as P.W.2 has stated that when they
returned home and enquired from her parents-in-laws, they
stated that the appellant inserted his penis into the vagina of the
Page 12 of 23
// 13 //
victim. It is further submitted that in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement,
the victim has specifically stated that the appellant embraced her
and in the Odia, she has stated it is 'Jakila'. She has not stated
that the appellant either inserted any finger or penis into her
vagina and moreover, the doctor, who examined the victim, has
stated that the medical examination report of the victim revealed
recent sign of attempted but incomplete penetrative sexual
assault. It is further submitted that in view of the evidence of the
doctor, the alleged offence, if any, does not come within the
purview of penetrative sexual assault as defined under section 3
of the POCSO Act or rape as defined under section 375 of the
Indian Penal Code, which came into force by the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013. The learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the doctor, who examined P.W.5 noticed
three injuries on his person stated that the duration of injury was
within two to three hours of her examination and P.W.5 was
examined on 08.08.2014 and therefore, such injury does not co-
relate to the time of occurrence which took place on 07.08.2014
and thus, the presence of the P.W.5 at the spot is a doubtful
feature. It is further submitted that in view of the glaring
discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, it is a fit case
where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the
appellant.
Page 13 of 23
// 14 //
Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State of Odisha, on the other hand, supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the mother of the victim
was examined as P.W.2 and she has stated that 'Jakila' on the
private part of the victim means 'intercourse' in their local
language and therefore, merely because the victim has used such
word in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, it cannot be said that she has
not stated about sexual intercourse committed on her by the
appellant. It is further contended that the victim was a girl aged
about five to six years and she has specifically stated that the
appellant inserted his finger into her vagina and further stated
about the presence of eye witness, who is none else than her
grandfather, who has been examined as P.W.5 and supported the
prosecution case. It is further submitted that nothing has been
brought out in the cross-examination of either P.W.1 or P.W.5 to
discard their version. It is further submitted that the occurrence
took place in the evening hours on 07.08.2014 and at that time,
the parents of the victim were not present in their house and they
had taken the cows for grazing and when they returned home,
they came to know about the incident from the grandparents of
the victim and accordingly, on the next day, the first information
report was lodged at Balliguda police station and therefore, there
is no delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. The doctor, who has
Page 14 of 23
// 15 //
examined the victim, from her physical findings, dental
examination, secondary sexual characters (not developed) and
radiological findings, opined the age of the victim to be in
between five to six years. She further stated that the medical
examination report of the victim revealed that there was recent
sign of an attempted but incomplete penetrative sexual assault
and that the external injuries detected on the person of the victim
would be possible due to the dragging effect of long, pointed
finger nail and the duration of the injuries were forty eight hours.
It is argued that in view of the available material on record, it
cannot be said that there is any perversity or illegality in the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and
therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
8. There is no dispute that the star witness on behalf of
the prosecution is the victim herself, who has been examined as
P.W.1. Since the victim was a child witness, the learned trial
Court put some questions to her and found that she was able to
give rational answers and declared her to be competent to give
evidence. Law is well settled that even in absence of oath, the
evidence of a child witness can be considered under section 118
of the Evidence Act. The Court should bear in mind while
assessing the evidence of a child witness that the witness must be
a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other
Page 15 of 23
// 16 //
competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. As
a rule of prudence, the Court always finds it desirable to have
corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence
on record. (Ref.: Dattu Ramrao Sakhare -Vrs.- State of
Maharashtra reported in (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases
341)
The victim stated that while she was playing in the
evening hours on the heap of sands with her friends, the
appellant came near her, caught hold of her and then embraced
her body and 'Jakila'. Then the appellant made her lie on the
sands and inserted his finger into her vagina. Learned trial Court
has mentioned that by way of gesture, the victim pointed out to
her private part. The victim further stated that when her
grandfather came to her rescue, the appellant assaulted him and
then her grandmother came, wiped out the blood from her thigh
with her pant and then she was taken to the police station and
medically examined by the doctor. In the cross-examination, a
suggestion was given to her by the learned defence counsel that
blood was found on her thigh due to fall on the stone but the
victim has denied such suggestion. She specifically stated that
she told the incident to her parents, who were not present at the
time of incident and had been to graze cows and that her
grandparents also told the incident to her parents. Nothing further
Page 16 of 23
// 17 //
has been elicited in the cross-examination to create any doubt on
the evidence of the victim.
P.W.5, the grandfather of the victim stated that when
he returned home from the nearby shop carrying some grocery
articles, he enquired about the victim from his wife and came to
know that the victim was playing and his wife indicated the place
of occurrence and then he proceeded to the place of occurrence
and saw the appellant had opened his pant and torn the pant of
the victim and he also saw the appellant committing intercourse
with the victim and when he confronted the appellant about his
conduct, then the appellant all on a sudden inflicted lathi blow on
his head for which he fell down on the ground. He stated that the
blood was coming out from his injuries.
P.W.2 has also stated that she and her husband
returned home after grazing the cows and came to know about
the incident from her parents in-law and they took the injured
(P.W.5) and the victim for medical examination. The evidence of
P.W.3 also corroborates the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has
specifically answered to the question put by the Court that the
appellant 'Jakila' on the private part of the victim and 'Jakila'
means in the local language 'intercourse'. It is true that whereas
the victim stated that the appellant inserted his finger into her
vagina, her parents stated to have heard from P.W.5 that the
Page 17 of 23
// 18 //
appellant inserted his penis into the vagina of the victim and that
P.W.5 has stated that he saw the appellant was making
intercourse with the victim, but on that score the evidence of the
victim or the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved particularly
in view of local language 'Jakila' used during evidence. Nothing
has been brought out in the evidence of any of the aforesaid
witnesses to disbelieve their version.
The doctor, who has examined the victim, has stated
that it revealed to be a case of recent signs of an attempted but
incomplete penetrative sexual assault.
'Penetrative sexual assault' as per the definition of
section 3 of the POCSO Act includes the act of a person, if he
inserts, to any extent, any part of the body, not being the penis,
into the vagina. Therefore, the evidence of the victim that the
appellant inserted his finger into her vagina would certainly come
within the definition of 'penetrative sexual assault'. 'Aggravated
penetrative sexual assault' as per section 5 of the POCSO Act
would be attracted, inter alia, if someone commits penetrative
sexual assault on a child below twelve years of age. Similar is the
definition of 'rape' in section 375 of the Indian Penal Code which
was substituted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
which came into force from 03.02.2013. Section 376(2)(i) of the
Page 18 of 23
// 19 //
Indian Penal Code is attracted if rape is committed on a woman
when she is under sixteen years of age.
The age of the victim as per the doctor's evidence has
been assessed to be five to six years. The entry made in the
admission register of Rutungia Anganwadi center which was
seized as per the seizure list Ext.22 revealed that the date of birth
of the victim is 10.12.2008, which also corroborates the evidence
of the doctor that the age of the victim was about six years. Apart
from the victim, her parents have also stated the victim was aged
about five years at the time of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution
has successfully established the age of the victim to be six years.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mukesh and Ors. -Vrs.- State for NCT of Delhi and
Ors. reported in (2017) 67 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 72
that while dealing with the cases of rape, the Court must act with
utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix
in view of settled legal principles and it should not be swayed by
minor contradictions in appreciation of evidence of the witnesses
which are not of a substantial character. The conviction for an
offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other
circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the victim of a sexual
assault stands on par with the evidence of an injured witness.
Page 19 of 23
// 20 //
Just as a witness, who has sustained injury is not likely to
exculpate the real offender, the evidence of the victim of sex
offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration
notwithstanding. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer
from any basic infirmity and the probabilities factor does not
render it unworthy of credence, there is no reason to insist on
corroboration except corroboration by the medical evidence.
In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the
humble view that the prosecution has successfully established
that the victim was aged about six years at the time of
occurrence. The learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance on
the evidence of the victim, her parents and grandfather, who is
an injured in this case so also an eye witness and relying on the
medical evidence, the Court has come to the conclusion that the
ingredients of all the offences under which the charge has been
framed except under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are
made out against the appellant. The evidence of the injured
witness (P.W.5) regarding his assault gets corroboration from the
doctor (P.W.6). The age of injury as given by the doctor does not
match with the time of assault as stated by P.W.5, nonetheless,
in view of the definition of 'hurt' as per section 319 of the Indian
Penal Code which includes bodily pain, it cannot be said that
there is any illegality in the order of conviction of the appellant
Page 20 of 23
// 21 //
under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. I find no infirmity or
perversity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction.
The appellant is in judicial custody since 09.08.2014
and therefore, he has already undergone substantive sentence of
more than eight years. The minimum punishment prescribed for
the offence under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code is
ten years which may extend to imprisonment for life and the
minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under section 6
of the POCSO Act is also ten years which may extend to
imprisonment for life. Therefore, while upholding the impugned
judgment and order of conviction of the appellant under sections
376(2)(i)/323 of the Indian Penal Code so also under section 6 of
the POCSO Act, the sentence imposed under section 376(2)(i) of
the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court is reduced from
twelve years to ten years and the fine amount imposed for the
offence under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and the
default sentence remains unaltered so also the sentence imposed
for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. No
separate sentence is imposed for the offence under section 6 of
the POCSO Act in view of section 42 of the said Act. The sentence
imposed now for the offence under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian
Penal Code and section 323 of the Indian Penal Code shall run
concurrently.
Page 21 of 23
// 22 //
It appears from the impugned judgment that the case
of the victim has been referred to Secretary, D.L.S.A., Phulbani to
pass compensation for rehabilitation of the child. It is not known
as to whether the victim has been compensated or not.
In view of the enactment of the Odisha Victim
Compensation Scheme, 2012 which was revised by Odisha Victim
Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2018 and 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, Phulbani to examine the case of the
victim after conducting the necessary enquiry in accordance with
law for grant of compensation under the aforesaid Schemes.
Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the District
Legal Services Authority, Phulbani for compliance.
With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the
JCRLA stands dismissed.
Trial Court's record with a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the concerned Court forthwith for information
and necessary action.
Before parting with the case, I would like to put on
record my appreciation to Mr. Anirudha Das, the learned Amicus
Page 22 of 23
// 23 //
Curiae for rendering his valuable help and assistance towards
arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned Amicus
Curiae shall be entitled to his professional fees which is fixed at
Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred only).
.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7th September 2022/RKM Page 23 of 23