Ganesh Munda @ vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 8876 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

                                       JCRLA No.88 of 2019

        Appeal from judgment and order dated 12.04.2019 passed by
        the Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Children's
        Court, Keonjhar in Special Case No.12/03 of 2019.

                                           ---------------------------

               Ganesh Munda @                          .......                          Appellant
               Balabhadra Munda @
               Sunidhi

                                                   -Versus-



               State of Odisha                         .......                      Respondent



                    For Appellant:                       -       Ms. Sefali Das, Advocate



                    For Respondent:                      -       Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy
                                                                 Addl. Standing Counsel

                                           ----------------------------

        P R E S E N T:


                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 09.08.2023

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.K. SAHOO, J. The appellant Ganesh Munda @ Balabhadra Munda @

Sunidhi faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children's Court, Keonjhar in Special // 2 //

Case No.12/03 of 2019 for commission of offences under

sections 376AB/323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter "the

I.P.C.") and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter "the POCSO Act") on the

accusation that on 09.01.2019 at about 6.00 p.m. near Dalkinala

of village Nuagaon, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with

the victim, who was then aged about seven years, and also

voluntarily caused hurt to her and committed aggravated

penetrative sexual assault on her.

Learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated

12.04.2019, found the appellant guilty under section 376AB of

the I.P.C. and section 6 of the POCSO Act and acquitted him of

the charge under section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and

to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year

for the offence under section 376AB of the I.P.C. No separate

sentence was awarded for commission of the offence under

section 6 of the POCSO Act in the view of section 42 of the said

Act.

// 3 //

The Prosecution Case:

The prosecution case as per the First Information

Report (hereinafter 'F.I.R.') lodged by P.W.2 (Jabini Munda) is

that the victim (P.W.3) is his daughter who was aged about

seven years at the time of occurrence. On 09.01.2019 at about

6.00 p.m., while the victim was playing in the house of the

appellant, he offered to drop her at her house but when the

victim accompanied him, he took her inside a jungle and

committed rape on her. The victim sustained bleeding injury and

after she regained her sense, she returned to her house crying

and disclosed before her family members that the appellant

committed rape on her and also assaulted her. The victim was

first taken to Barbil hospital with the help of the ward member

and later, she was shifted to District Headquarters Hospital

(hereinafter 'D.H.H.'), Keonjhar where she was admitted.

On the written report of P.W.2 before the I.I.C.,

Rugudi Police Station, Rugudi P.S. Case No.02 dated 10.01.2019

was registered under sections 376AB/323 of the I.P.C. read with

section 4 of the POCSO Act. The I.I.C., Rugudi Police Station

(P.W.16), on receipt of the written report of the informant

(P.W.2), took up investigation. During the course of

investigation, he examined the informant, scribe of the F.I.R.

// 4 //

and other witnesses, visited the spot along with the informant

near the Bank of Dalkinal and as per his direction, T. Mahanta,

Constable guarded the spot till the scientific team, D.F.S.L.,

Keonjhar visited the spot for collecting material evidence. On the

same day, he seized one blood stained pink colour frock, one

blood stained black and white colour baby pant and the Aadhaar

card of the victim girl being produced by Raghu Munda, grand-

father of the victim and prepared seizure list marked as Ext.18.

He further stated that he made requisition to I.I.C., Town Police

Station for deputation of one lady police officer for recording the

statement of the victim under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He also

seized one star printed orange-white colour baby full top of the

victim, one blood stained blue colour 1/3rd pant of the victim on

production by the informant and prepared seizure list marked as

Ext.20.

The I.O. also seized the biological materials of the

victim being collected by the medical officer and prepared the

seizure list marked as Ext.21. He again visited the spot along

with the scientific team and prepared spot map marked as

Ext.22. On 11.01.2019, at about 7.00 a.m., after verification of

Aadhaar card, he apprehended the appellant. On the same day,

he seized the wearing apparels of the appellant along with his

// 5 //

Aadhaar Card on being produced by him and prepared seizure

list marked as Ext.1. The I.O. deputed one ASI of police Rama

Mahanta to Madangjhir M.E. School, Sonua, West-Singhbhum,

Jharkhand for the purpose of seizure of school admission register

for ascertaining the actual date of birth of the appellant. He sent

the appellant for his medical examination through requisition

marked as Ext.23. Subsequently, he received the medical

examination report of the appellant along with his biological

materials collected by the medical officer and on being produced

by Purandara Barik, Constable, he prepared seizure list marked

as Ext.24. He received the xerox attested copy of the extract of

school admission register of Madangjhir M.E. School, Sonua,

West Singhbhurn, Jharkhand containing the date of birth of the

appellant along with seizure list and zimanama on being

produced by ASI, Rama Chandra Mahanta and prepared seizure

list marked as Ext. 25. Thereafter, he produced the appellant

before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar.

On 12.01.2019, the I.O. seized the Register of the

Anganwadi Centre, Nuagaon on being produced by Janaki Kissan

(P.W.10), Anganwadi Worker and prepared the seizure list

marked as Ext.5 and examined other witnesses. On 14.01.2019,

the I.O. had been to Madangjhir M.E. School, Sonua West

// 6 //

Singhbhum, Jharkhand and examined the Headmaster and other

witnesses. On 16.01.2019, he made a prayer before the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar for sending seized

exhibits for chemical examination to S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar. The

chemical examination report was received from the S.F.S.L.

marked as Ext.29. On the same day, he made a requisition to

Superintendent, S.C.B. Medial College and Hospital, Cuttack for

obtaining injury report in respect of the victim and on

19.01.2019, he received the same. On the same day, he made a

prayer for recording the statement of the informant under

section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and witness Lemba Munda before the

Juvenile Justice Board. After completion of the investigation, the

I.O. submitted the charge sheet under section 376AB/323 of the

IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.

Prosecution & Defence Witnesses:

During course of the trial, in order to prove its case,

the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses.

P.W.1 Maniki Munda is the father of the victim

(P.W.2) who stated about being informed about the unfortunate

incident over telephone by his wife. He supported the

prosecution case.

// 7 //

P.W.2 Jabini Munda is the mother of the victim so

also the informant in this case. She stated that on the fateful

day, when the victim came back to the house, she was crying

and blood was oozing out of her private part. She supported the

prosecution case.

P.W.3 is the victim in this case who stated that the

appellant had taken her to Dalkinala in his armpit and forcibly

committed sexual intercourse with her.

P.W.4 Bulu Bahadur is a driver and a co-villager of

the victim and the appellant and he is a witness to the seizure of

the wearing apparels of the appellant vide seizure list Ext.1.

P.W.5 Nandini Munda was the Ward Member of

Nuagaon and wife of P.W.4 who stated that the parents of the

victim came to her house and narrated the incident before her

and her husband. She also stated to have witnessed blood

oozing out of the private part of the victim.

P.W.6 Shailendra Narayan Dhal was working as the

Supervisor of Sree Metalic Company who scribed the F.I.R. as

per the version of the informant (P.W.2) and read over and

explained the contents thereof to the informant.

P.W.7 Dillip Kumar Purty was a co-villager who

stated that on 09.01.2019, at about 06:00-06:30 p.m. while he

// 8 //

was returning from his duty, he found the appellant going

towards Dalkinala along with the victim. After about one hour, he

heard that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse on

the victim.

P.W.8 Dr. Sine Subhadarsini Rout was posted as the

Medical Officer, D.H.H., Keonjhar who medically examined the

victim and she proved her report vide Ext.3. In her cross-

examination, she admitted that she has no post-graduate degree

in Gynecology and she handled a case under the POCSO Act for

the first time.

P.W.9 Lemba Munda is a co-villager who stated that

when she had gone to the house of P.W.1 and when she was

present there, the victim came crying and the wearing apparels

of the victim was stained with blood. On examination, she found

blood was oozing out from her private part. She further stated

that the victim disclosed the incident before her.

P.W.10 Janaki Kissan was working as an Anganwadi

worker in the village Nuagaon who stated that on 12.01.2019,

the police had been to the Angawadi Centre and seized the

family detail register of Anganwadi Centre, Nuagaon Gudasahi on

her production and prepared the seizure list and she is a witness

to the said seizure list vide Ext.5.

// 9 //

P.W.11 Gangaram Tiria was working as a constable

at the Rugudi Police Station who stated that on the instruction

given by the I.I.C., Rugudi Police Station, he went to S.F.S.L.

Bhubaneswar along with the exhibits and collected the chemical

examination report and handed over the same to the I.I.C.,

Rugudi Police Station.

P.W.12 Chittaranjan Satapathy was working as a

Pharmacist at the D.H.H., Keonjhar who stated that the police

seized the bed head ticket of the victim from his possession and

prepared the seizure list marked as Ext.9.

P.W.13 Hemanta Kumar Pani was working as the

Medical Record Keeper in charge at the S.C.B. Medical College &

Hospital, Cuttack who stated that the police seized the original

bed head ticket of the victim from his possession and prepared

the seizure list marked as Ext.12.

P.W.14 Dr. Byasadev Mishra was posted as the

Assistant Professor, O & G Department, S.C.B. Medical College &

Hospital, Cuttack who medically examined the victim and

submitted his report vide Ext. 15.

P.W.15 Dr. Soubhagya Rashmi Ranjan Samal was

posted as the Medical Officer, C.H.C., Barbil who examined the

// 10 //

appellant and also conducted his ossification test. He submitted

his report vide Ext.16.

P.W.16 Manas Ranjan Barik was posted as the

Inspector-in-Charge of the Rugudi Police Station, Keonjhar who

is the Investigating Officer of this case.

The prosecution exhibited thirty-eight numbers of

documents. Exts.1, 5, 9, 12, 18, 20, 21, 24 & 25 are seizure

lists, Ext.2 is the F.I.R., Ext.3 is the medical examination report

of the victim, Ext.4 is the bed head ticket, Exts.6, 10, 13, 26 &

36 are seizure lists. Ext.7 is the date of birth of the victim

entered in the Anganwadi register, Ext.11 is the original bed

head ticket, Ext.14 is the original bed head ticket, Ext.15 is the

medical examination report of the victim, Ext.16 is the medical

examination report of the appellant, Ext.22 is the spot map,

Ext.29 is the chemical examination report and Exts.33,34 & 35

are the 164, Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.2, P.W.9 and the victim

respectively.

The defence plea of the appellant is one of the

complete denial. No witness was examined on behalf of the

defence.

// 11 //

Finding of the Trial Court:

The learned trial Court, after assessing the oral and

documentary evidence on record and taking into due

consideration the findings of the S.F.S.L. report (Ext.29), has

been pleased to hold that the prosecution proved through

cogent, credible and unimpeachable evidence that the victim was

raped by the appellant and she was less than twelve years of age

at the time of occurrence. Therefore, it held that the prosecution

has been successful in proving the offences punishable under

section 376AB of the I.P.C. and section 6 of the POCSO Act

against the appellant. The learned trial Court, however, did not

find the appellant guilty for commission of the offence under

section 323 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted him of such

charge. Looking at the seriousness of the offences involved and

the manner in which it has been committed by the appellant

against the minor rustic victim girl, the learned trial Court further

held that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to extend

the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in his favour and

accordingly, passed sentence under section 376AB of I.P.C. as

already stated.

// 12 //

Contentions of Parties:

Ms. Sefali Das, learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the parents of the victim (P.W.3) being examined

as P.W.1 & P.W.2 have neither stated about the date of birth nor

the age of the victim and the victim has also not whispered

anything about the same. Therefore, she argued that the

findings of the learned trial Court that the prosecution has well

proved that the victim was less than twelve years of age as on

the date of occurrence is based on no evidence. It is further

argued that the informant (P.W.2) did not know Odia language

and she only knew Munda language and the scribe of the F.I.R.

(P.W.6) stated that he did not know Munda language, therefore,

doubt is created as to how the F.I.R. was scribed in Odia

language. Learned counsel further argued that no medical

document from Barbil hospital, where the victim was first taken

for her medical examination, has been proved and also she

pointed out that the doctor who treated the victim at D.H.H.,

Keonjhar was not having a Post-Graduate Degree in Gynecology

and therefore, she urged that the findings recorded by the

learned trial Court against the appellant must be outrightly

discarded and he should be acquitted of all the charges.

// 13 //

Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned counsel for the

State, on the other hand, submitted that even though the

evidence of the parents of the victim so also the victim is silent

about the date of birth of the victim and her age but the

evidence of the Anganwadi Worker (P.W.10), who proved the

family details register of Anganwadi Centre, Nuagaon Gudasahi

indicates that the date of birth of the victim was mentioned to be

29.07.2012 and since the occurrence in question took place on

09.01.2019, the victim was about seven years of age as on the

date of occurrence. The learned counsel further submitted that

the F.I.R. has been scribed by P.W.6 on the version of the

informant (P.W.2), the mother of the victim and he has proved

his handwriting and signature on the same and therefore, the

discrepancies regarding P.W.6 not knowing Munda language

cannot be a factor to disbelieve the entire prosecution case and

this solitary aspect cannot propel the Court to believe that

lodging of the F.I.R. is shrouded in mystery. Learned counsel

further submitted that the evidence of the victim, who is a minor

girl, aged about seven years has remained unchallenged and

unshaken. Further, her evidence that she was forcibly raped by

the appellant for which she had suffered pain all over her body

and there was bleeding from her private part is getting

// 14 //

corroboration from the evidence of the two doctors, i.e., P.W.8

and P.W.14 and the victim, immediately after the occurrence,

has disclosed before her parents, i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the

same and so also before P.W.9. Thus, he argued that the

prosecution has successfully established the charges under

section 376AB of the I.P.C. so also under section 6 of the POCSO

Act against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and

therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit should be dismissed.

Age of the Victim:

Adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel

for the respective parties and evidence available on record

regarding the age of the victim at the time of occurrence, it

appears that the evidence of the parents of the victim is totally

silent as to what was her age on the date of occurrence and what

was her date of birth. The victim also, being examined as P.W.3,

on a question put by the learned trial Court regarding her age

stated that she could not say about the same. However, P.W.10,

the Anganwadi worker of the village has stated about the seizure

of the family detail register of the Anganwadi Centre, Nuagaon,

Gudasahi as per seizure list Ext.5 and it was produced in the

learned trial Court and proved, wherein it was mentioned that

the date of birth of the victim is 29.07.2012. She specifically

// 15 //

stated that they were entering the family details and date of

birth of the children of the villagers. She further stated that the

serial number of the house of Maniki Munda (P.W.1) is 055 and

she had entered the entry herself. She has proved the date of

birth entry in the register marked as Ext.7. P.W.10 specifically

stated in her cross-examination that she was appointed as the

Anganwadi Worker on 29.03.2012 and she had been continuing

in that job even on the date of her deposition. Therefore, when

the date of birth of the victim was mentioned in the Anganwadi

Centre register and P.W.10 was working as the Anganwadi

Worker and nothing has been brought out in the cross-

examination of P.W.10 to disbelieve her evidence and no

contrary evidence has been adduced by the defence relating to

the date of birth of the victim, I am of the humble view that the

date of birth entry in the Anganwadi Centre is admissible under

section 35 of the Evidence Act and if this date of birth is taken

into account, then it would be obvious that as on date of

occurrence (09.01.2019), the victim was aged about seven

years. Therefore, there is no perversity in the finding of the

learned trial Court that as on the date of occurrence, the victim

was less than twelve years of age.

// 16 //

Discrepancies relating to lodging of the F.I.R.:

Now coming to the lodging of F.I.R. by P.W.2, it

appears that P.W.2 is an illiterate lady and she has given left

thumb impression (L.T.I.) on her deposition sheet. It further

appears that when she was examined in the learned trial Court,

she stated that she did not know Odia language and therefore,

the learned trial Court appointed one Sushanta Kumar Bodra as

the interpreter and he translated Munda language into Odia

language and vice versa and accordingly, the evidence was

recorded. The scribe of the F.I.R. is none else than P.W.6, who

has stated that the F.I.R. was written by him as per the version

of P.W.2 and he has proved his signature along with the

endorsement in the same. He further stated that the F.I.R. was

read over and the contents of the written report were explained

to the informant. He further stated in his cross-examination that

when he had come to the police station on 10.01.2019 for some

personal work, P.W.2 was present in the police station and she

requested him to write the F.I.R. and as per her instruction and

narration, the report was written by him. Therefore, there is no

suspicious feature in the lodging of the F.I.R., particularly when

not only P.W.2 stated that it was lodged on being scribed by

// 17 //

P.W.6 but also P.W.6 stated that on the version of P.W.2, he has

written the F.I.R.

Effect of non-examination of doctor of Barbil Hospital:

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

though the victim was first taken to the Barbil hospital, but no

medical document from the said hospital was exhibited and no

doctor from the hospital was examined, which weakens the

prosecution case and raises a reasonable doubt. However, such

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant does not hold

much water in view of the submission made by the learned

counsel for the State who rightly pointed out from the evidence

of father of the victim that as there was no adequate facility in

the Barbil Hospital, the Medical Officer referred the victim to

D.H.H., Keonjhar and accordingly, he brought the victim to

D.H.H., Keonjhar. Thus, it is apparent that the victim was not

treated at Barbil hospital and she was taken to D.H.H., Keonjhar

as per the advice of the Medical Officer posted at the Barbil

Hospital. Therefore, non-examination of any doctor of Barbil

Hospital or non-proving of any medical document of such

hospital is no way fatal to the prosecution case.

// 18 //

Analysis of the medical evidence:

P.W.8, the Medical Officer who examined the victim

at D.H.H., Keonjhar, noticed that there was external injury

present on the private part of the victim and there were

abrasions on the inner aspects of labia majora and labia minora,

her hymen was ruptured and destroyed and laceration extended

from hymen to posterior commisure then to anus. P.W.8 also

found redness, congestion and tenderness on the private part of

the victim. The defence has failed to dislodge the version of the

doctor, i.e., P.W.8 which is corroborated by the evidence of

P.W.14, the Associate Professor, O &.G. Department of S.C.B.

Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. On 11.01.2019, the victim

complained of pain in her abdomen and pain while urinating and

defecating (passing stool). P.W.14 opined that the entire

external genitalia was inflamed and inner aspect of labia majora

was excoriated (reddish) with a tear in between the urethral

opening and vagina of size 5 x 2.5 cm. red in colour and another

tear in between vagina and anus in the midline of size 2 x 2.5

cm. and vaginal swab and smear were colleted. The doctor of

Surgery Department also examined the victim and noticed

perineal tear and anal incontinence (flowing of stool

involuntarily). Accordingly, the victim was subjected to surgical

// 19 //

repair of rent in the pouch of the douglas and a loose colostomy

was conducted. The injuries found on the victim are consistent

with the history of sexual assault on her. The age of injury on

the date of examination was found to be within one to two days.

Analysis of Other Evidence:

The victim, being examined as P.W.3, has specifically

stated that the appellant took her to Dalkinala in his armpit,

where he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She

has further stated that after the incident, she felt pain all over

her body and blood was oozing out from her private part. She

denied the suggestion given by the learned defence counsel that

she fell on a split wood and sustained injury on her private part.

After giving a careful and judicious consideration to the aforesaid

medical findings, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution

has successfully established the factum of rape on the innocent

minor victim and that she had sustained injuries on account of

such bestial act by the appellant which is corroborated by

medical evidence.

It is apparent that when the victim first came to the

learned trial Court for examination on 14.02.2019, the learned

trial Court put some questions to her and the victim required

some time to depose. Therefore, it was deferred to the next day.

// 20 //

On 15.02.2019, again she was put some questions by the

learned Court and it was found that the victim was able to give

rational answers to the questions put to her and she was

declared to be a competent witness. However, the recording of

the evidence of the victim was deferred and it was taken on

01.03.2019 when she gave her evidence and stated about

commission of rape on her by the appellant.

P.W.1, the father of the victim, in his statement

deposed that when he got information over telephone from

P.W.2 (informant) that the appellant had committed rape on the

victim, he came to the house and reached there at 8.30 p.m.

and found that the victim was crying and blood was oozing out

from her private parts. Then, the victim was taken in 108

ambulance to Barbil Hospital for her treatment. Thereafter, she

was referred to D.H.H., Keonjhar for treatment and from there,

she was referred to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack.

P.W.2, the mother of the victim, also stated that the

victim had gone to the house of the appellant for playing and the

appellant took her into the jungle and committed sexual

intercourse on her and when the victim returned to the house

crying, she found that blood was oozing out from the private part

// 21 //

of the victim (P.W.3) and on being asked, the victim narrated the

incident before her.

P.W.9, a co-villager has stated that when she went

to the house of P.W.1, the victim came to her house crying and

her wearing apparels were stained with blood. On examination,

she found that blood was oozing out from her private parts. The

victim disclosed that the appellant had taken her to Dalakinala in

his armpit and removed her wearing apparels and committed

rape on her. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-

examination of either the victim or P.W.1 or P.W.2 or P.W.9 to

disbelieve their evidence.

Law is well settled that the Court must accord due

importance to the testimony of the victim, if she is found to be

clear, cogent and trustworthy. Evidence of a victim of rape

stands at a higher pedestal than the evidence of an injured

witness as she suffers from emotional injury. It would be wise on

the part of this Court to recall the following authoritative

pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Deepak Gulati -Vrs.- State of Haryana reported in (2013)

7 SCC 675:

"20. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, as it is an

// 22 //

assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim. While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. Rape reduces a woman to an animal, as it shakes the very core of her life. By no means can a rape victim be called an accomplice. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim, and therefore a rape victim is placed on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. Rape is a crime against the entire society and violates the human rights of the victim. Being the most hated crime, rape tantamounts to a serious blow to the supreme honour of a woman, and offends both, her esteem and dignity. It causes psychological and physical harm to the victim, leaving upon her indelible marks."

Therefore, in view of the non-teetering evidence of

the victim regarding commission of the heinous crime upon her,

this Court has scant hesitation in accepting her version. Further,

the conduct of the victim in disclosing the occurrence before her

family members, immediately after she returned from the jungle,

is relevant and admissible as res gestae under section 6 of the

Evidence Act. The said provision says, "Facts which, though not

in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of

the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the

// 23 //

same time and place or at different times and places." In the

case in hand, the victim did not try to cover-up the incident at

any point of time; rather she immediately reported the same to

her parents. Such conduct on the part of the victim manifests

the crying demand of a ravaged soul for protection and justice,

which is not only relevant but also incriminating against the

appellant.

The evidence of the victim coupled with her parents

and an independent witness like P.W.9 so also the doctors P.W.8

and P.W.14 clearly substantiate that the appellant committed

rape on the victim, who was then aged less than twelve years.

Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellant

guilty under section 376AB of the I.P.C. and section 6 of the

POCSO Act. Since in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act, the

Court has to impose punishment for the crime of greater degree,

the trial Court has rightly awarded the sentence for the

commission of offence under section 376AB of the I.P.C. as the

minimum sentence prescribed for such offence is twenty years.

Ergo, there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment and

accordingly, the Jail Criminal Appeal being devoid of merits

stands dismissed.

// 24 //

Before parting with the case, I would like to put on

record my appreciation for Ms. Sefali Das, learned counsel for

the appellant for rendering her valuable help and assistance

towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned

counsel shall be entitled to her professional fees, which is fixed

at Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred only). This

Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance provided

by Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

.................................

S.K. Sahoo, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th August, 2023/Amit

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Aug-2023 17:55:47