CUTTACK, India, May 1 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 31:

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna, in C.T. Case No.73 of 2022 (POCSO)/T.R. No. 100 of 2022, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 384 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years respectively with fines.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The prosecution case originated from an FIR lodged on 28.06.2022 by the mother of the victim boy aged about 16 years 8 months, alleging that the appellant had developed acquaintance with the victim during Durga Puja 2020 and subsequently established contact through phone and invited him to his residence.

(ii) It is alleged that over a period of time, the appellant induced the victim and his friend to visit his residence multiple times, gave them gifts including gold ornaments and a second-hand car, and allegedly engaged in acts of sexual misconduct with the victim, coupled with threats of blackmail.

(iii) The victim (P.W.7), his friend (P.W.2), and other family members were examined as prosecution witnesses, and the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as medical examination report were brought on record; the medical evidence did not indicate signs of recent sexual intercourse or injury.

(iv) The defence of the appellant was one of complete denial and false implication, asserting that the victim had voluntarily maintained contact, received monetary and material benefits, and that a prior FIR had been lodged by the appellant against the victim.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of her contentions:

(i) The impugned judgment is assailed on the ground that it suffers from non-appreciation and misappreciation of evidence, particularly in overlooking material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

(ii) It is contended that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of sexual assault and that there is absence of corroborative material to substantiate the prosecution case.

(iii) The appellant asserts that the relationship between the parties was voluntary in nature, as evident from repeated visits, continued contact, and acceptance of gifts by the victim without informing his family.

(iv) It is argued that there was an inordinate delay of nearly two years in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution case doubtful and indicative of afterthought and ulterior motive.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpJgYGuxVcq%2BU%2BdfHM90My2qL3D6bdMVLtfO%2BmCr2Z2uz&caseno=CRLA/553/2023&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010387792023&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.