CUTTACK, India, May 19 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on April 17:

1. The Convicts/Appellants, in this CRLA, assail the judgment of conviction dated 24.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 26.12.2024, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC, Jajpur in CT Sessions Case No.63 of 2024, whereby the Appellants were convicted under Sections 341 and 376D of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 25 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for five years.

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case, in essence, is that on 24.11.2023 at about 10:00 A.M., the victim, while proceeding to the house of her maternal uncle at village Bangara, was intercepted by the accused persons. On the pretext of escorting her to her destination, they deceitfully induced her to accompany them, but instead took her near Chhotakidi Mahadev Temple, where she was forcibly confined inside a nearby hume pipe. It is alleged that the accused persons tied her hands and mouth with a napkin and thereafter subjected her to forcible sexual assault, one after the other. The prosecution further alleges that a woman from village Damodarpur, having witnessed the occurrence, raised an alarm, upon which local persons rushed to the spot. Taking advantage of the commotion, accused Govinda fled from the scene, whereas the co-accused Kabi was apprehended by the persons present and was subsequently taken to the house of the victim's father. However, he too got managed to escape thereafter by pushing the informant. During the course of investigation, the first I.O., P.W 12, visited the spot, prepared the spot map, effected seizure of a yamah motor cycle under Ext.P-2, seizure of the wearing apparel of the accused Govinda @ Adity under Ext. P-10 and his biological substances under Ext.P-11, seizure of wearing apparel of the victim and her biological substances under two separate seizure lists under Ext. P-6 and Ext.P-12, respectively. Then, there was trial and the trial court returned the findings convicting the present Appellants.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

3. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the Appellants Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, contended that the prosecution case is riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, which go to the root of the matter and render the entire prosecution story unreliable. It was vehemently argued that the evidence on record does not establish the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, in fact, there is no substantive or cogent material connecting them with the commission of the alleged offence. Consequently, it was submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable in the eye of law.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xxy6W3JKu6EMpc2d67j0d%2FaQntUm9Q3To9tnvoVknqW8&caseno=CRLA/254/2025&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010129422025&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.