Orissa High Court
Litu Behera Alias Jaga vs State Of Orissa on 6 January, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 35
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK.
JCRLA No. 71 Of 2015
From judgment and order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the
learned Special Judge -cum- Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G.R.
Case No.45 of 2013.
-----------------------------
Litu Behera @ Jaga ........ Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ........ Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Nityananda Mohapatra
For State: - Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain
Addl. Standing Counsel
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 06.01.2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. SAHOO, J.The appellant Litu Behera @ Jaga along with co- accused persons Samir Behera, Prakash Rout, Kabat @ Kabuli Senapati and Kalia Dalei faced trial in the Court of the learned Special Judge -cum- Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G.R. Case No.45 of 2013 for offences punishable under sections 342/34, 363/34, 366-A/34, 376-D of the of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of 2 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter 'POCSO Act').
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2015 though acquitted the co-accused persons Prakash Rout, Kabat @ Kabuli Senapati and Kalia Dalai of all the charges and the co-accused Samir Behera was also acquitted of the charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act, however, he was found guilty under sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant was acquitted of the charges under sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code but he was found guilty under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a one year for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for one year for the offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by the victim on 09.09.2013 before the officer in 3 charge of Tigiria police station is that she was having love affair with the appellant since one year prior to the lodging of the first information report. The appellant was a tractor driver and co- accused Amu Sahu and Samir Behera were the helpers of the appellant in the said tractor. It is stated in the F.I.R. that on 06.09.2013 at about 8.00 p.m. while the victim had been to the backside of her house to wash her hands, the co-accused Samir Behera and Amu Sahu came in a black colour motorcycle and told the victim that the appellant was calling her. Since the victim was having love affair with the appellant, without intimating anybody in the house, she accompanied the two co- accused persons sitting on the motorcycle. On the way when the victim asked the two co-accused persons about the appellant, they told her not to worry and assured to take her to the place where appellant was waiting for her. Accordingly, the victim was taken to a Mundia (a small hillock) of village Manpur. She found the other co-accused persons Prakash Rout, Kalia Dalai and Kabuli Senapati were sitting there. When the victim asked them about the whereabouts of the appellant, they replied that the appellant would come very soon. It is further stated in the first information report that at about 10 O' clock in the night, co- accused Amu Sahu forcibly committed rape on the victim in spite 4 of her protest and she was also given threat with dire consequence. After commission of rape by co-accused Amu Sahu, the other co-accused persons namely, Samir Behera, Kalia Dalai and Prakash Rout committed gang rape on her. They stayed in that hillock throughout the night and on the next day morning, the accused persons gave food to the victim and on 07.09.2013 night also all those persons namely, Amu Sahu, Samir Behera, Prakash Kumar Rout, Kabuli Senapati and Kalia Dalai committed rape on her. On 08.09.2013 evening at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant came to that place and the victim disclosed about the occurrence before the appellant. It is stated that when nobody was there in the hillock during mid-night, the appellant also committed rape on the victim and in that night both of them stayed together in a cottage and on 09.09.2013 at about 5.00 a.m., the appellant told the victim to wait in the cottage and left the place to bring cash from the bank to go to Banki. The victim girl agreed to the proposal given by the appellant and stayed back. At about 6 O' clock in the morning, five persons saw the victim at that place and one of them took the victim to his house and provided her food.
3. The victim presented the first information report on the basis of which Tigiria P.S. Case No.87 of 2013 was registered 5 on 09.09.2013 under sections 342, 363, 366-A, 376-D of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act against six persons namely, Litu Behera (appellant), Amu Sahu, Samir Behera, Prakash Rout, Kalia Dalai and Kabat @ Babuli Senapati. The officer in charge of Tigiria police station namely, Tapan Kumar Rout (P.W.17) took up investigation of the case.
During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the victim and her mother Laxmi Sahu (P.W.1). He visited the spot in presence of the victim and her mother and prepared the spot map (Ext.20). On 10.09.2013 the appellant was arrested and brought to the police station. Requisition was sent to Scientific Officer, Cuttack by the Investigating Officer to visit the place of occurrence i.e. Manpur Mundia. The I.O. proceeded to Manpur Mundia and seized the wearing apparels of the victim which were lying in front of the hut under seizure list Ext.7/1. The scientific team arrived at the spot and they also prepared a spot visit report and handed over it to the investigating officer. The wearing apparels of the appellant were seized under seizure list Ext.11. The appellant and the victim were sent for medical examination to S.D. Hospital, Athagarh. As there was no lady doctor at Atagarh hospital, the victim refused to get herself examined by a male doctor. The appellant was 6 forwarded to Court on the next day of his arrest i.e. on 11.09.2013. The victim and her mother produced the certificate of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha and one School Leaving Certificate of the victim girl of Bindhanimaa Girls High School which were seized under seizure list Ext.4 and keeping the xerox copies, the originals were handed over in the zima of the victim under zimanama Ext.5. The victim was sent with her mother to the F.M.T. Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for her medical examination and on the production of the Havildar, the I.O. seized two sealed packets containing vaginal swab and pubic hair and one sealed packet containing clothes of the victim and one forwarding letter under seizure list Ext.18. Co-accused Kabat @ Kabuli Senapati was arrested on 11.09.2013 and he was also sent for medical examination to C.H.C., Tigiria and on 13.09.2013 he was forwarded to Court. On 14.09.2013, the I.O. arrested accused Kalia Dalei from his house and sent him for medical examination to C.H.C., Tigiria and forwarded him to Court on 15.09.2013. The I.O. made a prayer before the Court for recording the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C and accordingly, the same was recorded on 18.09.2013 by learned S.D.J.M., Athgarh. The co-accused Amu @ Amulya Sahu who was a juvenile was apprehended on 7 16.09.2013 and he was also sent for medical examination. The co-accused Samir Behera was arrested 02.10.2013 and sent to C.H.C., Tigiria for his medical examination and on 03.10.2013 he was forwarded to Court. On 09.10.2013 the co-accused Pravas Kumar Rout was arrested and sent to C.H.C., Tigiria for medical examination and then forwarded to Court. Though a prayer was made by the Investigating Officer to conduct test identification parade but the T.I. parade could not be conducted in the case. The Investigating Officer received the medical examination reports of the appellant and other co-accused persons and on 26.12.2013, he sent the exhibits to S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar through Court for chemical examination. On 01.01.2014 charge sheet was placed against all the accused persons including the juvenile Amulya Sahu for offences punishable under sections 342, 363, 366-A and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.
4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses.
P.W.1 Smt. Laxmi Sahoo is the mother of the victim and she has stated about the missing of her daughter from the house for four days and she further stated that when her 8 daughter was traced out, she disclosed that six accused persons took her izzat.
P.W.2 is the victim who narrated the incident in detail and she is a witness to the seizure of her matriculation certificate and school leaving certificate under seizure list Ext.4 which were taken by her in zima as per zimanama Ext.5.
P.W.3 Manas Barik did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile.
P.W.4 Dr. Manoranjan Rout examined the appellant at S.D. Hospital, Athgarh on 10.09.2013 and opined that the appellant was capable of committing sexual intercourse. He proved his report Ext.8.
P.W.5 Dr. Biren Xalxo examined co-accused Amulya Sahu @ Amuand proved his report Ext.9.
P.W.6 Indramani Sahoo was the constable attached to Tigiria Police Station and he is a witness to the seizure under seizure list Ext.10.
P.W.7 Bhagabat Aurk and P.W.8 Santosh Kumar Pradhan were the A.S.I. of Police attached to Tigiria police station and they stated about the seizure of one half pant on production by the appellant on 10.09.2013 as per seizure list Ext.11.
9
P.W.9 Gagan Bihari Pradhan was the Home guard attached to Tigiria police station and he is a witness to the seizure as per seizure list Ext.12.
P.W.10 Gagan Behera was the Home guard attached to Tigiria police station and he is also a witness to the seizure under seizure list Ext.13 P.W.11 Biswambar Jena stated about the seizure of matriculation certificate and school leaving certificate of the victim as per seizure list Ext.4.
P.W.12 Pabitra Mohan Panda was the Home guard who stated about the seizure of the sealed packets, one letter and one coffee colour napkin produced by the Havildar on 16.09.2013 as per seizure list Ext.14.
P.W.13 Dr. Geeta Sahu examined the victim on 11.09.1993 at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and she proved her report Ext.15.
P.W.14 Sudhakar Mohanty was the A.S.I. of police attached to Badamba police station and he stated about the seizure of small sealed glass bottles collected by the M.O., one letter of M.O., S.D.H., Athagarh and one command certificate under seizure list Ext.10 so also the seizure of other bottles and other articles as per the seizure lists Exts.16 and 17. 10
P.W.15 Meghanad Pradhan was the Havildar attached to Tigiria Police station and he is a witness to the seizure of one command certificate, two sealed packets and one sealed packet of cloth and one forwarding report as per the seizure list Ext.18.
P.W.16 Debraj Naik was the constable attached to Tigiria police station and he is also a witness to the seizure as per seizure lists Ext.10/3, Ext.17, Ext.18/2 and Ext.19.
P.W.17 Tapan Kumar Rout was the officer in charge of Tigiria Police Station who is the Investigating Officer of the case.
The prosecution exhibited twenty two numbers of documents. Ext.1 is the signature of victim on a document refusing her medical examination by a male doctor, Ext.2 is the plain paper F.I.R., Ext.3 is the consent memo for medical examination of victim, Exts.4, 7/1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are seizure lists, Ext.5 is the zimanama, Ext.6 is the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext.8 is the medical report of accused Litu Behera, Ext.9 is the medical report of accused Amulya Sahu, Ext.15 is the medical examination report of the victim, Exts.20 and 21 are the spot maps and Ext.22 is the forwarding report.
11
5. The defence plea of the appellant is that the victim and her mother gave proposal of marriage of the victim with him through different persons but since he denied such proposal, they have foisted the case.
The appellant examined himself as D.W.1.
6. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence on record came to hold that on the date of alleged incident the victim was aged about 16 years i.e. below 18 years of age. It is further held that from the testimony of the victim, charges under sections 363/366-A of the Indian Penal Code is established against accused Samir but such charges were not established against accused persons Litu, Prakash, Kabat @ Kabula and Kalia. The learned trial Court further held that the charge of wrongful confinement under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code has failed. It was further held that there is no clinching and convincing evidence to establish the offence under section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code as the testimony of the victim regarding gang rape on her by accused Samir, Prakash, Kabat and Kalia was found to be rendered unworthy of credence and belies probability factors and evidence of prior concert amongst the accused persons is also wholly lacking. The learned trial Court however held that on 08.09.2013 the victim was below eighteen 12 years of age and therefore, the sexual intercourse by the appellant with the victim attracts the offence of rape under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.
7. Mr. Nityananda Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the finding of the learned trial Court that the victim was aged about 16 years is based on speculation. It is his contention that when the original documents like matriculation certificate, school leaving certificate and school registers were not produced and proved in the trial Court and there was no horoscope or birth certificate of the victim and the father of the victim who admitted her in school was an illiterate person and the victim has stated that she could not say what was her age when she took admission in the school and the father of the victim has not been examined and the mother has stated that she could not say the date of birth of the victim, on the basis of the medical evidence of P.W.13, the opinion formed by the learned trial Court is erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the victim and the appellant were having love affair according to the statement of the victim and both of them stayed together in the hut in the night of occurrence and they had sexual intercourse 13 and there is no evidence of any resistance being offered by the victim to such sexual intercourse, therefore, the surrounding circumstances clearly indicates that it was a case of consent. It is further contended that when the substantial part of the testimony of the victim has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court and the co-accused persons have been acquitted, it was not proper on the part of the learned trial Court to convict the appellant and it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant.
Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the victim is the informant and right from the first information report, she has named all the accused persons in the F.I.R. including the petitioner and the F.I.R. was lodged immediately after she was rescued and she has also identified the accused persons in Court and stated about the occurrence in detail and therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the co-accused persons mainly on the ground that test identification parade has not been conducted. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State that there are ample materials on record to show that the victim was below the age of 18 years at the relevant point of time and therefore, consent, if any, of 14 the victim to the sexual intercourse with the appellant in view of her love affair is in no way relevant in view of the clause sixthly of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit should be dismissed.
8. At the outset, it appears that the learned trial Court has committed legal error in imposing sentences for both the offences after convicting the appellant under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code so also under section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Court has imposed sentence to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one year for offence under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The same sentence was also imposed for the offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Section 42 of the POCSO Act states about the 'alternate punishment'. It states, inter alia, that when an act or omission constitutes an offence under the provisions of the POCSO Act and also under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, then, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree. Therefore, even if the learned trial Court found the appellant 15 guilty under section 376(1) of the IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, he should not have imposed sentences on the appellant for both the offences.
In case of Sagar Kuldi -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2018) 69 Orissa Criminal Reports 279, it is held as follows:-
"9.....In view of the section 42 of the POCSO Act, it is clear that even though the Court can prosecute and convict the appellant both under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 6 of the POCSO Act but the Court cannot impose punishment for both the offences and can only impose punishment for the offence which is greater in degree. The choice being that of the learned trial Judge, he has to see which of the offences carries punishment of greater degree and accordingly impose punishment. Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code states that where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any of such offences.
Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which deals with provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments states 16 that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. In view of the special provision under section 42 of the POCSO Act, the Court can prosecute and convict the appellant both under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 6 of the POCSO Act but so far as punishment is concerned, the Court has to choose from the two which would obviously carry punishment of greater degree. Therefore, the imposition of punishment for both the offences i.e. under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act by the learned trial Court is nothing but a legal error."
9. The learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that on the date of alleged occurrence, the victim was aged about sixteen years i.e. below eighteen years of age.
The victim (P.W.2) has stated her date of birth was 02.06.1998 as noted in her school certificate. Though the matriculation certificate and school leaving certificate were seized by the I.O. under seizure list Ext.4 but those were left in the zima of the victim as per zimanama Ext.5. Neither in Ext.4 17 nor in Ext.5, has the date of birth of the victim as per the certificates been mentioned. The original certificates were neither produced during trial nor were those marked as exhibits.
The victim has stated that she could not say what was her age when she took admission in the school and she could not say the date of birth of her elder brother and elder sister. She stated that her father was illiterate and she had got no horoscope or birth certificate and her father had got her admitted in the school. The mother of the victim has been examined as P.W.1 and she has stated that the victim was her second child but she could not say her year of birth and she could not say the date and year of birth of her children. The father of the victim has not been examined in the case. The victim has stated her age to be seventeen years at the time of giving her evidence on 12.06.2014 and the occurrence in question alleged to have taken place in between 06.09.2013 to 08.09.2013. Neither the Headmaster nor any of the teachers of the school where the victim was prosecuting her studies was examined nor was the school admission register proved in the case. When there is no horoscope and birth certificate of the victim and the victim's father was an illiterate person and he had got the victim admitted in the school, it is not known on what 18 basis the date of birth was entered in the school register. When the knowledge of the victim regarding her date of birth was on the basis of the school certificate which has not been produced in Court during trial and her father has not been examined and her mother was unable to say her date and year of birth, it is difficult to accept that the date of birth of the victim was on 02.06.1998 which is stated to have been mentioned in her school certificate. The doctor (P.W.13) who has examined the victim has stated that from the physical, dental and radiological examination, the age of the victim was in between 15 to 17 years at the time of examination. P.W.13 has stated that X-ray plates of ossification were not attached to the report as it was kept in the department. She further stated that the radiology department had taken the X-ray of the victim and the plates were submitted to her for her opinion. Thus neither the X-ray plates were produced nor the person who conducted the X-ray was examined and even the radiological examination report has not been produced in Court. The margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side has been judicially recognized in the case of Jaya Mala -Vrs.- Home Secretary reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1297.
19
In case of Alamelu and Anr. -Vrs.- State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2011) 48 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 546, it is held as follows:-
"41. In fixing the age of the girl as below 18 years, the High Court relied solely on the certificate issued by P.W.8 Dr. Gunasekaran. However, the High Court failed to notice that in his evidence before the Court, P.W.8, the X-ray Expert had clearly stated in the cross- examination that on the basis of the medical evidence, generally, the age of an individual could be fixed approximately. He had also stated that it is likely that the age may vary from individual to individual. The doctor had also stated that in view of the possible variations in age, the certificate mentioned the possible age between one specific age to another specific age. On the basis of the above, it would not be possible to give a firm opinion that the girl was definitely below 18 years of age. In addition, the High Court failed to consider the expert evidence given by P.W.13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar, who had medically examined the victim. In his cross-
examination, he had clearly stated that a medical examination would only point out the age approximately with a variation of two years. He had stated that in this case, the age of the girl could be from 17 to 19 years..."20
Therefore, the medical evidence could not have been the determinative factor which, inter alia, gave the platform for the learned trial Court to come to the opinion that the victim was aged about sixteen years. On the analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence, I am of the view that in absence of any clinching oral evidence and when material documents relating to the age of the victim have not been proved in accordance with law, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the victim was below eighteen years of age at the time of occurrence.
When the defence has challenged the age of the victim and has confronted to her that the date of birth given by her as per school certificate was not correct, it was the duty of the prosecution to adduce reliable and acceptable evidence in that respect. Any speculation on such important aspect is likely to cause miscarriage of justice.
10. The statement of the victim (P.W.2) indicates that it is the co-accused Samir Behera and Amu @ Amulya who took her in a motor cycle to the 'Mundia' of village Manpur giving an impression that the appellant was calling her and there she stayed with those two persons and other three persons which according to her were co-accused Prakash Kumar Rout, Kabuli 21 Senapati and Kalia Dalai. It is her case that those five accused persons committed rape on her not only on 06.09.2013 night but also on 07.09.2013 night and they were also with her and providing tiffin to her on 7th morning. At that point of time, the appellant was nowhere in the picture. The appellant arrived at the place on 8th evening. The victim has stated that she and the appellant mutually loved each other and he was assuring her to marry. She further stated that she was in talking term with the appellant and prior to the incident, the appellant had never misbehaved with her. She further stated that she was wishing to marry the appellant. The victim stated that on 8th evening the appellant arrived there, took her to the thatched house and he had sexual intercourse with her on 8th night. The victim has not stated that she raised any kind of protest to the appellant or that the appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The evidence rather goes to show that on the next morning i.e. 9th September, the appellant told her to stay there and he would come with money by bringing from the bank. It appears that after the appellant left the place, within one hour, three to four villagers came there and took the victim with them and the matter was intimated to the police. Therefore, in absence of any clinching evidence that the victim was below the age of eighteen 22 years, the surrounding circumstances under which the victim and the appellant stayed together in the hut in the night on 8th night when nobody was there in the Mundia, their previous love affair, the interestedness of the victim to marry the appellant as stated by her and absence of any evidence of protest by the victim to the sexual intercourse with her by the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant committed rape on the victim on 8th night rather the victim can be stated to be a consenting party to the sexual intercourse with the appellant.
It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons of the charge under section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code mainly on the ground that the occurrence having been taken place in the night, it was difficult to believe that P.W.2 could identify the accused persons particularly the co-accused Prakash. The learned trial Court further held that the victim disclosed before her mother that all the six accused persons took her izzat which does not mean that she was ravished for two days by Amu (JCL) and accused persons Samir, Prakash, Kabat and Kalia. The learned trial Court gave much importance to the non-holding of T.I. parade in respect of the co-accused persons while disbelieving the case of gang rape on the victim against them.
23
The victim has stated to have remained in the company of the co-accused persons for sufficient length of time i.e. on 6th night, during the day time on 7th when she was provided with food by them as well as on the 7th night. According to her, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse on 6th night as well as on 7th night by all those five co-accused persons. In such a scenario, she must have observed the co-accused persons from close quarters. There is no evidence that the co- accused persons were concealing their faces while they were in the company of the victim. Therefore, the reasonings assigned by the learned trial Court that since the victim was not aware about the names of three of them i.e. co-accused Prakash kumar Rout, Kabuli Senapati and Kalia Dalei beforehand, therefore, her identification in Court was unworthy of credence cannot be said to be a proper view in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of sufficient exposure of the co-accused persons to the victim, the identification of the co-accused persons by the victim in Court should not have been discarded on the ground of non- holding of the test identification parade as the victim has not only named them before her mother which is admissible as res gestae under section 6 of the Evidence Act but also in the F.I.R. However, neither the State of Odisha nor the informant (victim) 24 has challenged the order of acquittal of the co-accused persons of the charge under section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code or other offences and therefore, such acquittal order has reached finality.
11. In view of the forgoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Jail Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed thereunder is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act. The appellant who is in custody shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.
Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.
................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 06th January, 2018/Sisir/Kabita 25