Registered for the alleged Commission of offence under Section 313, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of the POSCO Act has applied to Section 439 of Cr.PC for release on bail held in Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K.Pangrahi in the matters of Ananda Chandra Majhi v. the State of Odisha. [BLAPL No. 4893 of 2020].
The background of the case arises from a written report lodged in the District Child Protection Officer. It was disclosed that the minor girl aged about 13 years was produced before the Child Welfare Committee by the police, after that she was handed to the open shelter home. While staying in the shelter home, she complained about body pains and shifted to Community Health Center, later shifted to the government hospital for better treatment. During the counselling in the shelter home, the minor girl disclosed before the staff about the pregnancy for three months and abortion was carried out by the doctor of Community Health Center. The victim disclosed the fact that impregnated by a boyfriend who is working in Mumbai. Further, FIR disclosed the fact that the girl was again impregnated by a second boyfriend. Eventually, the minor alleged before the Child Welfare Committee that the Baba Babu keep the sexual relationship for the last three months and added one male staff kept a sexual relationship with the minor girl. The FIR was filed against the people who have sexually assailed the minor girl.
The petitioner contended that no way connected with the case in any manner and no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted that the statement of the victim has been recorded by various authorities and noticed several inconsistencies in every statement. The Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department took up the investigation of the case and held that the minor girl gives a completely different statement contradicting the previous statement based on which the petitioner is taken into custody.
During the investigation, the victim revealed the statement of being in a different place and resides in a different house with the victim will. In the view of the prevarication statements of the victim, the allegation regarding the commission of rape and abortion at the instance of the petitioner cannot be believed nor it can be said that there is a prima facie material to connect the petitioner in the alleged crime.
The learned counsel submitted that there is a different instance where the prevaricating statement of the victim is self-contradicting to each other. Further, submitted the victim has changed the identity of the person responsible for the pregnancy several times in different statements. The investigation agency did not conduct any Test Identification Parade to ascertain whether the petitioner is the author of the crime. Such minor contradictions and discrepancies are insignificant and immaterial. With the material discrepancies in the statement of the victim as well as lack of corroboration, it is highly dangerous to court to rely on such a version of the prosecutrix to support the case of the prosecution.
The Hon’ble Court held that the “prosecutrix not supporting the victim version, the other oral, as well as forensic evidence, also do not support the case. There were material contradictions and lack of corroboration in the evidence of prosecutrix”. The petitioner was released on bail with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper.
Judgment Reviewed by Kaviya.S