IN THE HIGH COURT OF KALINGA

Presiding Officer: Rahul Roy,

High Court Judge,
Kalinga.

Criminal Suit No. 20 of 2020

u/s 376 (2)(n) of the Jambudvipian Penal Code, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 3(1)(w)(i) and 2(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Section 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The State of Kalinga…………………………………………………………Complainant

- Versus -
Hariprasad Rout,
S/o Ramesh Rout,
R/o Leela Nagar, P.S. Ekamra Kshetra,
District: Ekamra Kshetra (Kalinga)……………………………………………Accused

Appearance:
Sri D.C. Pandey,
Public Prosecutor………………….…...For the State
Sri R.S. Agarwal,
State Defence Counsel………………6…For the Accused

JUDGMENT AND DATES

Date of Argument: 3.10.2020
Date of Judgment: 10.10.2020
The accused Hariprasad Rout (17 years old) has been put on trial on the charge of sexually
assaulting Priya Naik (9 years old) and performing aggravated penetrative assault on her on
03.02.2020 punishable u/s 376 (2)(n) of the Jambudvipian Penal Code, 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 3(1)(w)(i). Accused committed this knowing that the girl
belongs to ST caste which is punishable u/s (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Priya Naik (PW 1) on the night of 03.02.2020 came to Mahila P.S in Ekamra Kshetra and
registered a complaint against Hariprasad Rout that the accused has sexually assaulted her
knowing that she belongs to ST caste. According to her, the accused promised to take her to
the central Bus stand from where she could find a bus to return to her house but instead he
took her to a Govt. High School campus and committed rape with her. He even performed
aggravated penetrative assaults on her and forced her to drink his urine. After that he left her
on the road and before leaving insulted her using words like pallan’, ‘pallapayal’, ‘parayan’
and ‘paraparayan’.
3. During the investigation WSI Gintanjali Mishra of Mahila PS, examined the victim and
recorded her statement. The ACP also examined other witnesses, seized the clothes worn by
victim and accused, collected evidence extracted by medical officers like pubic hair of
victim, semen of the accused and other documents required for investigation.
4. Although the accused is minor but since he is well aware of the consequences and results
of his acts his case was committed to the session court. Charges against the accused have
been framed on the grounds mentioned above. Sri R.S. Agarwal is the state defence Counsel
to defend the accused.
5. Complying with 207 of Cr.P.C The accused has been provided with the following
documents:
I. A copy of Police Report
II. Copy of statements of witnesses recorded under 120 of Cr.P.C.
III. Seizure Lists
IV. The first information Report recorded under section 254
V. Confessions and statement of the accused recorded under 164 of Cr.P.C.
Document further requested by accused and defence lawyer has also been provided with
further order on the court.
6. I have heard arguments being advanced by Sri D.C. Pandey, learned Public Prosecutor and
Sri R.S. Agarwal, learned State Defence Counsel.
7. According to the argument put forth by the Public Prosecutor, all the evidence available,
statements of the witnesses, medical reports of both victim and accused are enough to prove
that the accused has committed the crime. The CCTV footage of the bus station proves that
the accused did take the victim with him on his motorcycle. Statements made by PW 1, PW
9, PW 10, PW 13, Mr. kamalkanta Tripathi – PW 15 are in complete concurrence with each
other. The accused has also admitted before PW 11 and PW 12 that he has committed rape
and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. In their appeal in high court the
public prosecutor contended that the judgment passed by the learned trial court was not
satisfactory as the evidence presented before the court proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the crime has been committed. Hence The punishment should be increased.
8. Countering the argument made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the
State Defence Counsel Sri R.S. Agarwal contended that although the statements made by
witnesses show that the accused did take victim on his motorcycle to take her to the central
bus station none of the statements mentions that the accused sexually assaulted, or they saw
him doing so. Apart from it none of the eyewitnesses has seen the accused taking the victim
to the Govt. School. The statement made by PW 13 further solidifies the claims made by the
accused that he would take her to the central bus station. The intention of the accused was
only to help, which he did. In the high court the defence counsel contended the trial court had
no jurisdiction over the case as the accused was a minor.
9.On a cautious examination of the materials, the following focuses are bended out for
assurance: -
I. Whether the accused Hariprasad Rout committed sexual offence against the victim
Priya Naik?
II. Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction over the case as the Accused Hariprasad
Rout is a minor?
III. Whether the sentence given by the trial court is justified?
10. In total 161 statements have been recorded by WSI Gitanjali Mishra. Statements given
by all 19 witnesses are in complete congruence with one other. PW1, PW13, PW14, PW15
has identified the accused as the person who was with the victim on that night. From all these
statements it can be concluded that both Victim and the accused were together at the night of
the incident.
11. PW 9 and PW 10 confirmed that during investigation a necklace and a pick stone were
seized from the spot i.e., Govt. High school. It has also been confirmed that both of them
belong to the victim. From this it can be concluded that the accused did take the victim to the
spot as he was the only one present with her that night. This gets further solidified from the
statement made by PW 13 who confirms that the accused did bring the victim to his dhaba
after the alleged incident took place.
12. PW 17 on proper examination of medical reports has confirmed that there are signs and
symptoms of sexual intercourse. This has further been confirmed by a vaginal swab
examination report.
13. Evidence collected by the Medical Officer like pubic hair and semen of the accused
which were later sent for medical examination further confirms the possibility of sexual
assault on the victim and involvement of the accused in the incident.
On a very careful inspection and based on cross examination of all the statements made by
the witnesses I have found no ambiguity or inconsistency in the statements. The accused has
not denied that he was with the victim on that night and has admitted his crime. The evidence
presented in the court has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of
committing the crime.
DECISION, DISCUSSION AND REASONS THEREOF
14. Based on the arguments put forth by the defence it can be concluded that they were
unable to prove the innocence of the accused. The defence did not deny that the accused was
with the victim at the night of the incident. Defence contended that the evidence is not
enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but with careful
consideration the court has reached the conclusion that there is enough evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused. The contention of the defence that the trial court does not have the
jurisdiction over the case and the same should be entertained by the juvenile board cannot be
considered as well because the minor is above the age of 16 years and according to JJ Act,
2015 courts can trial minors above 16 years as adults for serious crimes.
15. After carefully analysing all the evidence and statements given by the witnesses the court
has decided that the judgement passed by the trial court should be followed. The court
provides the accused with an imprisonment of 7 year. Apart from this the accused is also
liable to pay all the medical expenses of the victim.
Rahul Roy
High Court Judge
Kalinga
16. The crime committed by the accused is very atrocious and heinous in nature and this will
forever impact the victim. The mental injury done by the accused is irreversible and the
damage done by it cannot be quantified or compensated. While the court agrees with the
sentiments of the victim's mother that the punishment is not enough, it cannot be overlooked
that the accused is a minor. Although the JJ Act, 2015 allows courts to trial minors above 16
years of age as adults in serious crimes the court is of the opinion that in this case, 7 years of
imprisonment is sufficient punishment. The accused being a minor should be provided with
an opportunity to reform and contribute to society in any way possible.

The prosecution is satisfied with the judgement and does not want to appeal further. The
defence is not satisfied with the judgement and wants to file an appeal in the supreme court.
Defence put forth the argument that the evidence is not enough to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and wants to set aside the order of conviction.

Given under my hand & seal of this Court on the 10th day of October 2020.

Dictated & corrected by me.

Rahul Roy
High Court Judge
Kalinga
 APPENDIX

WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION

P.W. 1 Priya Naik
P.W. 2 Mrs. Lalita Naik
P.W. 3 Mr. Ratikant Ho
P.W. 4 Mrs. Anjana Ho
P.W. 5 WSI Gitanjali Misra
P.W. 6 Mrs. Laxmipriya Behera
P.W. 7 Chitaranjan Sahoo
P.W. 8 Kedarnath Das
P.W. 9 Rajnikanta Sabar
P.W. 10 Soumya Ranjan Mallick
P.W. 11 Mr. Trinath Sahoo
P.W. 12 Shri Somnath Rout
P.W. 13 Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kisan
P.W. 14 Mr. Sankalp Bhuiyan
P.W. 15 Mr. Kamlakanta Tripathi
P.W. 16 Mr. Sudhansu Barik
P.W. 17 Dr. Renubala Dei
P.W. 18 Dr. Dwarka Nath Satapathy

WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENCE

NIL

DOCUMENTS FOR PROSECUTION

Seizure Lists
Zimanama
Medical report of victim
Medical report of accused
Accused’s confession
TI Parade report
FSL Acknowledgement
command certificate
Xerox copy of caste certificate
Xerox copy of transfer certificate
Xerox copy of land patta
Aadhar Card of Victim, Vicitm’s mother and father,
Xerox copy of R.C., along with record challan
Birth Certificate
DOCUMENTS FOR THE DEFENCE
NIL

COURT DOCUMENT
Document “X” G.D. Entry No.20 dated 03.02.2020 of Mahila P.S.