DEBABRATA SAHOO @ MITHUN @ DEBAPRASAD SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-7-10
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on July 30,2020

Debabrata Sahoo @ Mithun @ Debaprasad Sahoo Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the Petitioner under Section-14-A of S.C and S.C (P.A) Act assailing the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge-Cum- Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No-83/2019 corresponding to Nayakote P.S Case No-34 of 2019 rejecting the bail application of the Petitioner for commission of offences under Section-376(2)(n)/313/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section-6 of POCSO Act read with Section-3(2)(v)(va) of SC and ST (P.A) Act under which the accused-petitioner was forwarded to judicial custody.
(2.) Shorn of other details reflected in the impugned order dated 10.12.2019, the accused-petitioner has been implicated in this case for commission of offences under Section-376(2)(n)/313/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section-6 of POCSO Act read with Section-3(2)(v)(va) of SC and ST (P.A) Act on the allegation of committing forcible sexual intercourse with victim/ minor girl of 17 years who was the daughter of the informant. Further, it was alleged that, the victim was pregnant and petitioner caused miscarriage of the pregnancy of the minor victim by administering medicine. After lodging of the F.I.R on 5.10.2019 the petitioner was taken into custody on 27.11.2019.The accused subsequently filed an application seeking bail in which the victim also appeared and objected to the grant of bail on the ground that there is a possibility of harassment of the victim at the behest of the petitioner. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the court below vide its order dated 10.12.2019. The Addl. Session Judge-Cum- Special Judge, Keonjhar taking into account the seized school admission register of the victim which shows the date of birth of the victim to be 17.03.2002 and the medical report of the victim revealing healed hymnal tears on the private part of the victim and also the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code of India, 1973, it was observed that, since the investigation was in progress and a prima facia case was made out due to gravity of offences involved. There was a likelihood of absconding and influencing the prosecution witnesses.
(3.) Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Satyabrata Pradhan has made assorted submissions. He has submitted that in view of the case laws relied upon by him (which have been dealt hereunder) the Petitioner ought to be given the benefit of doubt. He placed releince on two documents with respect to the date of birth such as the Aadhar Card and the entry in the Anganwadi register which demonstrate that the victim was a major at the time of the commission of the alleged offences. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 and the rules framed thereunder. He also took this Court through the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He further contended that the offence as alleged in the instant case are not made out as there was a pre-existing history of love relationship between the parties. Lastly, he has submitted that since Aadhar Card as well as the Anganwadi Centre report both are prepared by public servants in the course of their official duty making them cogent and reliable proof of the age of the victim.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.