IN THE COURT OF THE AD HOC ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL

COURT (POCSO), BHUBANESWAR

Present:
Shri S.K. Sahoo, M.A., LL.M.,
Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Special Court (POCSO),
Bhubaneswar
(JO Code-OD90032)

Dated, the 5th day of April, 2024

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017

(N.C. No.T.R.188/2018)
[Arising out of Nayapalli P.S. Case No.466
Dated 28.11.2017]

State … Prosecution
Represented by Shri Rajib Sasmal, Special P.P.
& Shri Balaram Deo, Additional P.P.

-Versus-

Bapun Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o. Late Jaya Singh

of Village – Manatri, P.S. – Badasahi, District –
Mayurbhanj. A/p. – Adibasi Gaon, Salia Sahi, P.S. –
Nayapalli, District – Khurda
... Accused
(In custody)
Represented by Shri Manoj Nayak & Associates
Date of offence 25.11.2017
Date of FIR 28.11.2017
Date of charge sheet Date of C.S.-27.02.2018;
Date of taking cognizance-
28.02.2018
Date of framing of charges 19.03.2018
Date of commencement of 31.08.2018
evidence
Date on which judgment is 21.03.2024
reserved
Date of the judgment 05.04.2024
Date of the sentencing order, if --
any

Accused Details:

Rank of the Accused A-1 (sole accused)

Name of the Accused Bapun Singh
Date of Arrest 03.12.2017
Date of Release on Bail 26.02.2019 (produced in Court
on 03.02.2024 on the strength of
NBWA issued on 06.08.2022)
Offences charged with U/ss.363/366/342/343/346/
376(2)(i)/376(2)(n) of the IPC
r/w Sec.6 of the POCSO Act
Whether acquitted or convicted Acquitted
Sentence imposed --
Period of detention undergone --
during Trial for purpose of
Section 428, Cr. P.C.

Date of conclusion of Arguments: 21.03.2024

Date of Judgment: 05.04.2024

JUDGMENT

The above-named accused stands charged

under Sections 363/366/342/343/346/376(2)(i)/376(2)(n)
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and
under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short).

2. Facts of the prosecution case, as per the FIR

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 2 of 24

(Ext.1), in a nutshell, are as follows:
On 25.11.2017 in the evening, the informant
found her niece (name not mentioned herein to avoid
disclosure of her identity and, hereinafter, she will be
referred to as the ‘victim’) missing from her house. In
spite of thorough search, the informant could not be able
to trace her out. On enquiry, from the neighbours, the
informant came to know that the victim had left the house
with the accused. Previously, the accused was threatening
the informant to take revenge on her. In absence of the
informant from her house, on 25.11.2017 at 6:00 p.m., the
accused forcibly kidnapped the victim. So, FIR was
lodged by the informant at Nayapalli P.S. on 28.11.2017 at
11:00 a.m.
On receipt of the FIR, the IIC of Nayapalli
P.S. registered P.S. Case No.466 of 2017 under Section
363 of the IPC and directed S.I. P.K. Jena to take up
investigation of the case. After completion of the
investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused to
stand his trial in the Court of law.

3. The plea of the accused is one of denial

simpliciter.

4. The following points arose for determination:

i) Whether on 25.11.2017 at about 6:00 p.m. at
Adibasigaon Saliasahi under Nayapalli P.S., the
accused kidnapped the victim from the lawful

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 3 of 24

 guardianship of the informant?
ii) Whether the accused kidnapped the victim by
deceitfully inducing her to leave with him for
marriage, with intent that she may be forced to illicit
intercourse?
iii) Whether the accused wrongfully confined the victim
at Pahala and then at Nakhara?
iv) Whether the accused wrongfully confined the victim
at the aforementioned places for three or more days?
v) Whether the accused wrongfully confined the victim
in the above places in secret?
vi) Whether the accused committed rape on the victim, a
woman, when she was under sixteen years of age?
vii) Whether the accused committed rape repeatedly on
the victim, the same woman?
viii) Whether the accused committed aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on the victim?

5. The prosecution has examined as many as

seven witnesses and marked Exts.1 to 17/1 to prove its
case. On the other hand, none has been examined to
disprove the allegations made against the accused by the
prosecution.

6. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the

informant, who is the aunt of the victim; P.W.2 is the
husband of the informant; P.W.3 is the cousin brother of
the victim; P.W.4 is the doctor, who examined the victim
on police requisition; P.W.5 is another doctor, who
examined the accused on police requisition; P.W.6 is the
victim herself; and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer, who
after completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 4 of 24

against the accused.

7. At the outset, before going through the

evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and
appreciating in its proper perspective, this being a case
under the provisions of the POCSO Act, it is the first and
foremost duty of the Court to ascertain the age of the
victim. On perusal of the FIR (Ext.1), it transpires that the
age of the victim was 11 years at the time of the alleged
occurrence on 25.11.2017. The informant, who is the aunt
of the victim, has been examined as P.W.1. In her
examination-in-chief, she testified that on 25.11.2017, the
victim was found missing from her house; but she has not
stated the date of birth or the age of the victim. During
cross-examination, she admitted that she cannot say the
date of birth of the victim. It further transpires from her
evidence that the victim was prosecuting her study in
Kantabada School and police seized the school certificate
of the victim. P.W.2 is the husband of the informant. He
has also not stated the date of birth or the age of the
victim in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-
examination, he also fairly admitted that he cannot say the
date of birth of the victim. The admitted case of the
prosecution is that the parents of the victim are dead and
she was residing along with P.Ws.1 & 2 since her
childhood. They would have been the best witnesses to

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 5 of 24

depose about the age of the victim had they been alive.
P.W.3, who is related to the victim through P.Ws.1 & 2, is
also silent as to the age of the victim, during his
examination-in-chief; but he admitted during cross-
examination that he cannot say the date of birth of the
victim as per the certificate. P.W.6 is the victim herself,
who testified that she was aged about 11 years at the time
of the alleged occurrence.
P.W.1, the informant, deposed that police
seized the school certificate of the victim and prepared the
seizure list wherein she put her signature. She has not
proved the seizure list or her signature thereon. During her
cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the victim was
reading in Kantabada School at the time of the alleged
occurrence. P.W.3, who is related to the victim through
P.Ws.1 & 2, testified that police seized the certificate of
the victim in his presence on production by P.W.1 and
prepared the seizure list Ext.2. He proved his signature
thereon as Ext.2/1. During cross-examination, P.W.3
admitted that the certificate, which was seized by police,
was issued by the Headmaster, Khurda Ashram School.
The victim has not stated about her date of birth, during
her examination in Court as P.W.6. However, during her
cross-examination, at paragraph-5, she has stated that she
was reading in Haridamala Ashram School, Kantabada.
The I.O. (P.W.7) at paragraph-2 of his examination-in-

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 6 of 24

chief testified that on 28.11.2017, he seized the school
leaving certificate of the victim on production by the
informant and prepared the seizure list. It is also clear
from his evidence that Ext.2/2 is his signature on the said
seizure list. On perusal of Ext.2, it transpires that on
28.11.2017 at 11:30 a.m., he seized one school leaving
certificate of the victim on production by the informant
(P.W.1) and prepared the seizure list. The date of birth of
the victim is not available on the said seizure list. The
school leaving certificate, which was seized by the I.O. is
not produced before this Court for scrutiny and to confirm
that the victim was minor at the time of the alleged
incident.
From the evidence of the victim, it transpires
that she was medically examined by the doctor at Capital
Hospital, Bhubaneswar. It also appears from her evidence
that she was subjected to ossification test and Ext.7/1 is
her signature on the ossification test report. The I.O.
(P.W.7) has also testified that he had sent the victim to the
doctor of Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for her medical
examination on 02.12.2017 through C/673 Sanjukta Das;
but her examination could not be completed on the same
day for which on the next day i.e. on 03.12.2017, again he
sent the victim to Capital Hospital for her medical
examination and she was examined medically. The doctor,
who examined the victim, has been examined as P.W.4. In

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 7 of 24

her evidence, she testified that on 02.12.2017, she
conducted medical examination of the victim and
prepared her report vide Ext.3. She has not stated about
the examination of the victim again on 03.12.2017. She
has opined the age of the victim to be 15 to 16 years. On
perusal of the medical examination report of the victim
Ext.3, it transpires that she has formed the opinion about
the age of the victim after going through her ossification
report No.5294 dated 05.12.2017. The said ossification
report is proved as Ext.7 through the doctor (P.W.4), who
has examined the victim. On perusal of Ext.7, it transpires
that one Dr. A.P. Mishra has conducted the ossification
test of the victim and opined her age to be 15 to 16 years.
The said Dr. A.P. Mishra has not been examined by the
prosecution for being cross-examined by the defence.
The learned counsel for the accused has
relied on a decision in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs
Ananda Purohit reported in 1988 (Supp.) S.C.C. 604. He
further relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Sunil Vs State of Haryana reported in (2010)
1 S.C.C. 742 and submitted that school leaving certificate
is not a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the victim.
Admittedly, in the case at hand, the prosecution has failed
to prove the original school leaving certificate of the
victim. No other document, such as, Admission Register
is also produced by the prosecution to prove the age of the

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 8 of 24

victim. The non-production of the school leaving
certificate by the prosecution before this Court for perusal,
which was seized by the I.O. during investigation, creates
an adverse inference towards the prosecution case,
especially when P.Ws.1 & 2, who are the custodian of the
victim since her childhood after the death of her parents,
are ignorant about the date of birth of the victim. There is
also no evidence basing on which the date of birth of the
victim has been entered into the school leaving certificate.
Curiously enough, the I.O., who has seized the school
leaving certificate of the victim, has not mentioned the
date of birth of the victim in the seizure list (Ext.2) and he
also remained silent in that context, during his
examination in the Court. So, absolutely, there is no valid
and legal evidence before this Court relating to the date of
birth of the victim or her age.
The ossification test report of the victim has
been marked as Ext.7 through the doctor (P.W.4), who has
not conducted the said test. There is no reason as to why
the prosecution has kept him away from the witness box
by depriving the defence of subjecting him to cross-
examination, which is a sine qua non for a fair trial. The
doctor (not examined), who has conducted the ossification
test of the victim, has opined the age of the victim to be
15 to 16 years. The learned defence counsel has relied on
the decisions in the cases of Pawan Vs State reported in

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 9 of 24

(2024) 93 OCR SC 566; Binod Katara Vs State of U.P.
reported in 2022 SCC online SC 204; Litu Behera @
Jaga Vs State of Orissa disposed of on 06.01.2018 in
JCRLA No.71 of 2015; and Jaya Mala Vs Home
Secretary reported in AIR 1982 SC 1297 and submitted
that although it appears from Ext.7 that the doctor (not
examined) has opined the age of the victim to be 15 to 16
years, the margin of error in age ascertained by
radiological examination is two years on either side. In
absence of any clinching evidence that the victim was
below the age of 18 years, it will not come within the
purview of the POCSO Act. As such, according to the
learned defence counsel, in order to establish an offence
under the POCSO Act, it is necessary to prove the age of
the victim beyond reasonable doubt; but herein the
prosecution has failed to provide sufficient evidence to
prove the age of the victim to be below 18 years.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail

Singh Vs State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 263 held that the provisions of the Juvenile
Justice Act and Rules would equally apply to determine
the age of both a victim of crime and a child in conflict
with law. The Hon’ble Court relied on Rule 12(3) of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,
2007. The documents listed in Rule 12(3) become critical

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 10 of 24

to establish the age of the child, including the
determination of the age of a victim in POCSO Act case.
It was held that under the aforesaid provision, the age of a
child is ascertained by adopting the first available basis
out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in
the scheme of option under Rule 12(3), an option is
expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect
over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The
highest rated option available would conclusively
determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3),
matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the child
concerned is the highest rated option. In case of the said
certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied
upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule
12(3) envisages consideration of the date of birth entered
in the school first attended by the child. In case such an
entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth
depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and
conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon.
Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates
reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a
certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever
is to be taken into consideration for determining the age of
the child concerned, as the said certificate would
conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 11 of 24

the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3)
postulates the determination of age of the child concerned,
on the basis of medical opinion. The documents
mentioned in Rule 12(3) clause (a)(i)(ii)(iii) i.e. the
matriculation or equivalent certificate, the date of birth
certificate from the school first attended or the birth
certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority
or a panchayat have not been proved in this case. Clause
(b) of Rule 12(3) states that in absence of either (i), (ii) or
(iii) of clause (a), the medical opinion will be sought for
from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare
the age of the juvenile or child. It is pertinent to note that
section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 (hereafter ‘JJ Act, 2015’) also
states that the Child Welfare Committee or the Juvenile
Justice Board, in case of reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought before it is a child
or not, shall undertake the process of age determination by
seeking evidence by obtaining (i) the date of birth
certificate from the school, or the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned examination
Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the
birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal
authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of
(i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an
ossification test or any other latest medical age

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 12 of 24

determination test conducted on the orders of the
Committee or the Board. Keeping in view the ratio laid
down in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), the
determination of the age of the victim in POCSO Act case
can be done on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the
documents as referred to in section 94(2) of the JJ Act,
2015 and if none of these documents is available, the age
of the victim shall be determined by an ossification test or
any other latest medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the committee or the Board. The same
ratio has been reaffirmed by the judgment dated 18 th July,
2023 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.
Yuvaprakash Vs State, represented by Inspector of
Police, in Crl. Appeal No.(S) 1898 of 2023.

9. In the instant case, the prosecution although

relied on the school leaving certificate of the victim, it
was neither produced nor proved. There is no other
document produced and proved, as required under Section
94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015. The ossification test report of
the victim (Ext.7) is not proved by the doctor, who has
conducted the test and prepared the said report. It is also
the settled principle of law that the margin of error in age
ascertained by radiological examination is two years on
either side. Even though the age of the victim appearing in
Ext.7 i.e. ossification test report is to be considered, the

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 13 of 24

age of the victim might be 18 years at the relevant point of
time. After scrutinizing the evidence on record, it is
apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
all reasonable doubt that the age of the victim was less
than 18 years, which is its bounden duty. Hence, it cannot
be said conclusively that the age of the victim was either
under 16 years or below 18 years of age during the
material period in order to prove the charges leveled
against the accused under the POCSO Act.

10. As points for determination Nos.(i) & (ii) are

interlinked with each other, both are taken up together. It
is alleged in the FIR that the accused kidnapped the victim
forcefully. Admittedly, there is no eye witness of such
kidnapping of the victim by the accused. P.W.1, the
informant, testified that as she anticipated the kidnapping
of the victim by the accused, she lodged the FIR on
26.11.2017. During cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted
that after the victim was rescued, she had not disclosed
anything relating to her missing and rescue or about any
other incident. So, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1
that out of suspicion, she lodged the FIR of kidnapping of
the victim by the accused and she has no direct or indirect
knowledge about such kidnapping. P.W.2, the uncle of the
victim, in his evidence deposed that when they could not
find the victim on 25.11.2017 after returning home, his

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 14 of 24

wife (P.W.1) lodged the FIR against the accused, in view
of the previous threat administered by him. During his
cross-examination, P.W.2 testified that he heard about
kidnapping of the victim from his wife. On the other hand,
it is clear from the evidence of his wife that the victim had
not disclosed anything about the occurrence to her after
her rescue. P.W.3, the scribe of the FIR, who is also
related to the victim, testified that he heard about the
kidnapping from P.W.1. When P.W.1 clearly admitted in
her evidence that the victim did not disclose anything to
her after she was rescued, the evidence of P.W.3 that he
heard from her (P.W.1) about kidnapping of the victim by
the accused is not at all reliable. P.W.6, the victim, in her
examination-in-chief deposed that during the absence of
P.Ws.1 & 2, the accused kidnapped her on his bicycle and
kept in his uncle’s house at Pahala. During cross-
examination at paragraph-5, P.W.6 admitted that she left
the house of her uncle sitting on the bicycle of the accused
as per her wish and the accused had not forcibly taken her
on his bicycle. So, the evidence of P.W.6 in her chief
examination that she was kidnapped by the accused is
disowned by her own evidence during cross-examination.
Admittedly, the prosecution failed to prove the age of the
victim to be less than 18 years. It is also clear that the
victim had left the house of her uncle out of her own free
will. So, after scrutinizing the materials on record, it is

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 15 of 24

clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary
ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections
363/366 of the IPC against the accused.

11. As it is convenient to deal with points for

determination Nos.(iii), (iv) & (v) and they are closely
interlinked with each other, all those points are taken up
together for discussion. From the materials on record, it is
clear that the victim herself accompanied the accused to
Pahala and then to Nakhara. From the evidence of the
victim (P.W.6) and the I.O. (P.W.7), it is also clear that
P.W.7 rescued the victim and the accused while both of
them were reaping paddy from the paddy field of the
owner of the rented house where they were residing at
Nakhara. The victim has also not stated about her
wrongful confinement by the accused. Absolutely, there is
no evidence on record to show that the accused had
wrongfully confined the victim during the relevant period
of time.

12. Now, adverting to the points for

determination Nos.(vi), (vii) & (viii), it is found that
P.W.1, the informant, is the aunt of the victim. She
testified that on 25.11.2017, the victim was found missing
from her house for which she searched for her, but could
not trace her out. It further transpires from her evidence
that she anticipated that the accused might have

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 16 of 24

kidnapped her and with such anticipation, she lodged the
FIR on 26.11.2017. During her cross-examination, she
admitted that the victim had not disclosed anything to her
relating to her missing and rescue. It further transpires
from her evidence that the victim had not disclosed any
other incident to her and she was not examined by police
after the FIR was lodged.

13. P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1, in his

examination-in-chief deposed that on 25.11.2017 he had
been to attend his work and after returning home, he did
not find the victim for which he searched for her but could
not trace her out. It further transpires from his evidence
that the accused had given threat to him and he (the
accused) was also found missing for which he (P.W.2)
along with his wife (P.W.1) went to the police station
where the FIR was lodged. During his cross-examination,
P.W.2 admitted that the victim had not told him about her
kidnapping by the accused and he came to know about the
same from his wife. P.W.1, the wife of P.W.2, has not
stated in her evidence that she communicated her husband
that the accused had kidnapped the victim.

14. P.W.3 is the scribe of the FIR, who is also

related to the victim. In his examination-in-chief, he
deposed that on 25.11.2017, the victim was found missing
from her house for which they searched for her, but could

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 17 of 24

not be able to trace her out. It further transpires from his
evidence that they heard that the accused had kidnapped
the victim. During cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that
he heard about the kidnapping of the victim by the
accused from the informant. The informant (P.W.1) has
not stated so.

15. P.W.6 is the victim, who testified that she

came in contact with the accused during her stay at
Saliasahi, who conveyed that he was in love with her. It
further transpires from her evidence that the accused
asked her to live with him and during the absence of her
uncle and aunt, the accused kidnapped her on his bicycle
and kept her in his uncle’s house at Pahala. In the next
breath, P.W.6 testified that in spite of her protest, the
accused kept physical relationship with her in the said
house situated at Pahala and, thereafter, he took her to
Nakhara from which place, police rescued her and
apprehended the accused while they were cutting paddy in
a field. During cross-examination, she fairly admitted that
she left the house of her uncle sitting on the bicycle of the
accused as per her wish and the accused had not forcibly
her taken her on his bicycle. At paragraph-6, during cross-
examination, the victim (P.W.6) admitted that she had not
told anything to her uncle, aunt & MAMU about the
sexual assault by the accused on her. There is no reason as

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 18 of 24

to why the victim (P.W.6) did not disclose about the
sexual assault on her by the accused to her uncle, aunt &
MAMU after she was rescued.

16. The I.O., who has been examined as P.W.7, at

paragraph-17 of his cross-examination, testified that the
victim has not stated before him that the accused took her
on his bicycle and despite her protest he kept physical
relationship with her. There is no convincing reason as to
why the victim, at the first instance, did not narrate her
ordeal of commission of sexual assault by the accused on
her to the I.O. Ext.13 is the statement of the victim
recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate on
04.12.2017. Although after two days of her rescue, she
had given such statement, she did not disclose about
kidnapping and forcible sexual intercourse by the accused
with her. She had got sufficient time whereby she could
have divulged about the incident to the learned Magistrate
freely, but for the reasons best known to her, she chose to
remain silent. As it seems, if such an incident had in fact
happened, the victim would have disclosed the same
before the three independent public officials i.e. P.W.7
(the I.O.), learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded her
statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.), and P.W.4 (the doctor). It is
also admitted by the victim that she has not disclosed

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 19 of 24

about her kidnapping and the sexual assault on her by the
accused to any of her close relations examined as P.Ws.1,
2 & 3. The doctor (P.W.4) has examined the victim on
02.12.2017 and prepared the medical examination report
vide Ext.10. She has testified that there was no sign or
symptom of recent sexual intercourse and there was no
bodily injury on the person of the victim suggesting
forcible sexual intercourse. The absence of any injury on
the body of the victim creates a suspicion and does not
corroborate the evidence of the victim that she was
subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Ext.10 goes to
indicate that the victim has not disclosed about her
kidnapping and the sexual assault on her by the accused
before the doctor (P.W.4). In the above backdrop, the
evidence of the victim that the accused kidnapped her on
his bicycle and kept physical relationship with her in spite
of her protest is not at all reliable and trustworthy for the
reason that the same is nothing but deemed to be an after-
thought.

17. In light of the foregoing discussion and

taking into account the evidence adduced, as narrated
hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has
miserably failed to bring home any of the charges levelled
against the accused.

18. In the result, therefore, I hold the accused not

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 20 of 24

guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
363/366/342/343/346/376(2)(i)/376(2)(n) of the IPC and
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act; and I acquit him
therefrom under Section 235(1) of the Cr. P.C. He be set at
liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in
connection with any other case.

19. As the prosecution has failed to prove the

allegations against the accused, the victim is not entitled
to any compensation under the Victim Compensation
Scheme. In the event any interim compensation is
awarded in favour of the victim and paid to her, the same
be recovered after following due process of law.

20. The seized wearing apparels & biological

samples be destroyed four months after expiry of the
appeal period, if no appeal is preferred; in the event of
appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the
Hon’ble Appellate Court.

Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,

FTSC, Bhubaneswar

The judgment is typed to my dictation by the

Stenographer attached to this Court directly on the
computer, corrected by me and pronounced this day the 5th
April, 2024.

Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,

FTSC, Bhubaneswar

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 21 of 24

 LIST OF WITNESSES

A. Prosecution Witnesses:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

P.W.1 Aunt of the victim Informant & other witness;
P.W.2 Husband of the informant Other witness;
P.W.3 Cousin brother of the -do-;
victim
P.W.4 Dr. Mamata Barik Medical witness;
P.W.5 Dr. Laxmikanta Behera -do-;
P.W.6 Victim Eye witness;
P.W.7 Prakash Kumar Jena Investigating Officer

B. Defence Witnesses:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

Nil

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

Nil

LIST OF EXHIBITS

A. Prosecution Exhibits:

Sl. No. Exhibit Number Description

1 Ext.1 (P.W.3) F.I.R.;
(proved by P.W.3)
2 Ext.1/1 (P.W.3) Signature of P.W.3 on Ext.1;
3 Ext.2 (P.W.3) Seizure list;
4 Ext.2/1 (P.W.3) Signature of P.W.3 on Ext.2;
5 Ext.3 (P.W.4) Medical examination report of the
victim;
6 Ext.3/1 (P.W.4) Signature of P.W.4 on Ext.3;
7 Ext.3/2 (P.W.4) -do-;
8 Ext.4 (P.W.4) Requisition for examination of
vaginal swab;
9 Ext.4/1 (P.W.4) Signature of P.W.4 on Ext.4;
10 Ext.4/2 (P.W.4) Vaginal swab test report;

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 22 of 24

 11 Ext.5 (P.W.4) Blood group test report;
12 Ext.6 (P.W.4) Requisition for ultrasound
examination;
13 Ext.7 (P.W.4) Requisition for ossification test;
14 Ext.8 (P.W.4) Ossification test report;
15 Ext.9 (P.W.4) Ultrasound report;
16 Ext.10 (P.W.5) Medical examination report of
accused;
17 Ext.10/1 (P.W.5) Signature of P.W.5 on Ext.10;
18 Ext.10/2 (P.W.5) -do-;
19 Ext.11 (P.W.5) Requisition for VDRL
examination;
20 Ext.11/1 (P.W.5) Signature of P.W.5 on Ext.11;
21 Ext.11/2 (P.W.5) VDRL report;
22 Ext.12 (P.W.5) Blood grouping report;
23 Ext.4/2 (P.W.6) Signature of P.W.6 on
microbiological examination slip;
24 Ext.6/1 (P.W.6) Signature of P.W.6 on ultrasound
requisition form;
25 Ext.7/1 (P.W.6) Signature of P.W.6 on ossification
test report;
26 Ext.13 (P.W.6) Statement of the victim (P.W.6)
recorded under Section 164, Cr.
P.C.;
27 Ext.13/1 (P.W.6) Signature of P.W.6 on Ext.13;
28 Ext.13/2 (P.W.6) -do-;
29 Ext.1/2 (P.W.7) Endorsement with signature of the
then IIC of Jatni P.S., namely, Shri
Sangram Pattnaik on the FIR;
30 Ext.14 (P.W.7) Formal F.I.R.;
31 Ext.2/2 (P.W.7) Signature of P.W.7 on Ext.2;
32 Ext.15 (P.W.7) Spot map;
33 Ext.15/1 (P.W.7) Signature of P.W.7 on Ext.15;
34 Ext.16 (P.W.7) Seizure list;
35 Ext.16/1 (P.W.7) Signature of P.W.7 on Ext.16;
36 Ext.17 (P.W.7) Seizure list dated 03.12.2017;
37 Ext.17/1 (P.W.7) Signature of P.W.7 on Ext.17

B. Defence Exhibits, if any:

Sl. No. Exhibit Number Description

Nil

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 23 of 24

C. Court Exhibits, if any:

Sl. No. Exhibit Number Description

Nil

D. Material Objects:

Sl. No. Material Object Description

Number
Nil

Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,

FTSC, Bhubaneswar

T.R. Case No.2652 of 2017 Page 24 of 24