Nihimiya Lakra vs State Of Odisha
2022 Latest Caselaw 1977 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRLA No.257 of 2021

              Nihimiya Lakra                    ....     Appellant/
                                                       Petitioner

                                 Mr.P.K. Nayak, Advocate

                                     -versus-

              State of Odisha                   ....    Respondent/
                                                      Opp.Party

                                 Mr.P.K. Mohanty,
                                 Addl. Standing Counsel

                                CORAM:
                          JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

                                 ORDER

Order No.                      28.03.2022
                          I.A. No. 504 of 2021

03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).

This is an application for grant of bail. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under sections 376-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence under section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the // 2 //

offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar vide judgment and order dated 28th January 2021 in S.T. No.96/121 of 2019-17.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.07.2017 and though the evidence of the victim (P.W.2) is that it is a case of gang rape, but the doctor (P.W.11) has not noticed any bodily injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse and the clothings of the victim also did not bear any physical clue relating to the commission of sexual offence on her and there was no sign or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse on the genital of the victim. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution that P.Ws.4 and 6 were accompanying the victim at the time of occurrence, but they have simply stated that the victim was being forcibly taken away by the appellant and another accused, but their evidence is also silent about the commission of rape on the victim. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim has made delayed disclosure before her husband about the commission of rape and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the evidence of the victim gets corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 even though those two witnesses have not

// 3 //

stated about the commission of rape. He further submitted that the victim was a married lady of thirty five years of age and therefore, non-finding of any injury or symptoms of commission of rape on her by the doctor, who examined her two days after the occurrence, cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the victim.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence available on record, the nature and gravity of accusation and the manner in which the crime has been committed, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.

The I.A. is disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

PKSahoo