Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 429 (ORI)

PADIA ` PRADEEP KUMAR SAHU v. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

2010-06-24

A.S.NAIDU, S.C.PARIJA

body2010
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - This appeal is filed u/s 374(2) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure assailing the order of conviction and sentence dated 29th April, 2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in S.T. No. 162 of 1999 convicting the two Appellants for commission of offence under Sections 341/366/376(2)(g), IPC and further convicting Appellant No. 1,Padia ' Pradeep Kumar Sahu u/s 376 and 506, IPC and Appellant No. 2-Dhirendra Mohanty ' Tunia u/s 394, IPC and Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. Republic Of India [A.S.NAIDU, J.] sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months u/s 376(2)(g), IPC, R.I. for 10 years coupled with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months u/s 366, IPC and simple imprisonment for one month u/s 341, IPC and sentencing Padia ' Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Appellant No. 1 to undergo R.I. for 10 years coupled with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I for six months u/s 376, IPC and R.I. for one year u/s 506, IPC, further sentencing Appellant No. 2, Dhirendra Mohanty ' Tunia to undergo R.I. for 10 years coupled with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months u/s 394, IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecutrix (name withheld by us), a 32 years old married lady was the resident of Bhubaneswar. On 9th January, 1999 at about 9.00 P.M. she (P.W.22) was proceeding to Cuttack along with P.W.9, a media person, in an Ambassador Car being driven by one Nilakantha Rout (P.W.17) via Baranga, which is a short-cut route to Cuttack from Bhubaneswar. On the way, the said Ambassador Car was intercepted by three accused persons near Baranga Railway Station, who were driving a scooter. It was alleged that they blocked the road by placing the scooter in front of the car. One of the accused persons being Biban (who is absconding till date and has not been arrested) got down from the scooter and aimed a revolver at Sutanu 286 Guru (P.W.9) and commanded him to occupy the front seat of the car. It was alleged that they blocked the road by placing the scooter in front of the car. One of the accused persons being Biban (who is absconding till date and has not been arrested) got down from the scooter and aimed a revolver at Sutanu 286 Guru (P.W.9) and commanded him to occupy the front seat of the car. Accused Padia thereafter coerced the driver Nilakantha Rout (P.W.17) at the point of knife to get down from the car and the said accused occupied the driver's seat. Accused Biban sat on the rear side along with the prosecutrix. Padia drove the car and diverted to Puri Canal Embankment road. They drove the car for a few kilometers and stopped at an isolated place. Accused Dhirendra Mohanty ' Tunia, Appellant No. 2 was following the car in the scooter along with Nilakantha Rout (P.W.17), the driver of the car as a hostage and pillion rider. He also joined the other two accused. Biban dragged the prosecutrix out of the car to the nearby field and carried a towel from the car. He (Biban) spread the towel on the ground, stripped the prosecutrix at the point of a carving knife, made her lie on the towel and ravished her. In the mean while, accused Tunia, robbed Sutanu (P.W.9) and snatched away the gold necklace, gold ring and a cash of Rs. 400/-. He also forcibly took away a cash of Rs. 50/-from the driver Nilakantha Rout (P.W.17). Thereafter, he went to the field and forcibly took away the gold chain and gold ring worn by the prosecutrix, dragged her to another place and raped her. It is alleged that both Biban and accused Tunia successively raped the prosecutrix for several times, whereafter they dragged her to the INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] canal embankment and Tunia sped away by riding the scooter whereas the absconder Biban put the prosecutrix into the car and allowed Sutanu to sit with her and he himself took the front seat along with the driver Nilakantha Rout (P.W.17). Padia, the other accused-Appellant No. 1 drove the car to 'Mundamunhana' through Trisulia crossing. At that place Biban got down from the car. Accused Padia however drove the car into Chandaka Forest via Banki road, stopped the car in the forest locally known as "Bhalunka Jungle". Padia, the other accused-Appellant No. 1 drove the car to 'Mundamunhana' through Trisulia crossing. At that place Biban got down from the car. Accused Padia however drove the car into Chandaka Forest via Banki road, stopped the car in the forest locally known as "Bhalunka Jungle". There he forcibly took away the ear stud of the prosecutrix and the wrist watch of P.W.9. He also assaulted Sutanu (P.W.9) by giving blows on his face. Consequently, his spectacles were broken. He also assaulted the prosecutrix and once again ravished her inside the car on the rear seat. After committing the rape, Padia made over the keys of the car to Nilakantha Rout (P.W.17) and escaped through the forest. 3. The traumatized prosecutrix thereafter asked the driver to take her to Mahila Police Station, Buxibazar, Cuttack along with Sutanu (P.W.9) and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.54) giving vivid narration of the entire episode. On the basis of the said F.I.R. police action was set to motion, P.S. Case No. 3 of 1999 was registered and investigation commenced. Considering the gravity of the offence, on 12.1.1999 the Crime Branch took over the investigation of the case and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to the C.B.I. as per the direction of this Court in OJC No. 396 of 1999. After completion of 287 investigation, C.B.I. submitted charge-sheet against the two accusedAppellants and the absconder Biban. 4. The plea of the accused persons was a denial simpliciter. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate itscase, got examined 27 witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is the doctor, whoexamined the victim lady (P.W.22), P.W.2 is the doctor, who examinedSutanu Guru (P.W.9), P.W.3 is the salesman of the petrol pump, P.W.4 isthe mother of Sutanu, P.W.5 is the owner of Patra Jewellers, P.W.6 is theM.V.I., P.W.7 is the scooter mechanic, P.W.8 is the owner of the scooter, P.W.9 is Sutanu Guru, the media person, P. Ws.10,11, and 12 are theScientific Officer of State F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Fingerprint S.I., D.F.S.L.,Cuttack and Asst. Photographer, D.F.S.L., Cuttack respectively. P.W.13 isthe cousin brother of accused Tunia in whose house he was staying,P. Ws.14, 15 and 16 are the Assistant Directors of State F.S.L., Rasulgarhand Finger Print Export of State Fingerprint Bureau, Bhubaneswarrespectively, P.W.17 is the driver of the Ambassador Car, P.W.18 is theMagistrate, who conducted T.I. Parade of the stolen gold articles. Photographer, D.F.S.L., Cuttack respectively. P.W.13 isthe cousin brother of accused Tunia in whose house he was staying,P. Ws.14, 15 and 16 are the Assistant Directors of State F.S.L., Rasulgarhand Finger Print Export of State Fingerprint Bureau, Bhubaneswarrespectively, P.W.17 is the driver of the Ambassador Car, P.W.18 is theMagistrate, who conducted T.I. Parade of the stolen gold articles. P.W.20 isthe Magistrate, who conducted T.I. parade in respect of the accusedpersons, P.W.21 is an independent witness, P.W.22 is the victim lady, P.W.23 is the doctor, who examined the accused persons, P.W.24 is the IIC,Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. Republic Of India [A.S.NAIDU, J.]Mahila Police Station before whom F.I.R. was lodged, P.W.25 is theInspector, C.I.D., C.B., P.W.26 is the Inspector, C.I.D., C.B. and P.W.27 isthe Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Spl. Crime Branch, Kolkata. 6. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution also gotexhibited as many as 85 documents and produced 24 material objects. Onbehalf of the defence, accused Tunia, Appellant No. 2 got examined onewitness. 7. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence in extensoand scrutinizing other material documents on record, came to the conclusionthat the prosecution was able to establish the alleged crime committed bythe accused persons and convicted both the accused Appellants forcommission of offence u/s 376(2)(g), IPC as well as otheroffences and sentenced them under different sections as statedhereinabove. 8. The Appellants assailed the order of conviction and sentence mainlyon the ground that the story narrated by the prosecutrix, P.W.22 and otherwitnesses like P. Ws.9 and 17 is improbable and cannot be accepted withouta pinch of salt. Drawing attention to the evidence of P.W.22, the prosecutrix,Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants submittedthat according to her the occurrence continued for four hours and twoaccused persons successively raped her. Such allegation according to Mr. Mishra appears to be exaggerated and the entire story is cooked up for other 288 purposes. The procedure adopted for conducting the T.I. parade is also criticized by Mr. Mishra. Drawing attention to the medical reports and the doctor's evidence, Mr. Mishra submitted, rather emphatically that no sign or mark of any violence or injury nor even abrasion appeared on the body of the prosecutrix, which raises a cloud of suspicion in the truthfulness of the story made out. Mishra. Drawing attention to the medical reports and the doctor's evidence, Mr. Mishra submitted, rather emphatically that no sign or mark of any violence or injury nor even abrasion appeared on the body of the prosecutrix, which raises a cloud of suspicion in the truthfulness of the story made out. It is also alleged that, absence of any stain of semen in the wearing apparels of the lady, raises a doubt with regard to the recent intercourse. The last submission of Mr. Mishra is that even if there was such an incident, the same was only with the consent of P.W.22 and not by force. 9. All these submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. Padhi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondent-C.B.I. According to Mr. Padhi, the prosecutrix has successfully identified both the accused persons in T.I. parade. A cumulative assessment of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, leads to the conclusion that the two Appellants and the absconding accused Biban had committed the crime and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. 10. To appreciate the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both parties, this Court went through the evidence very carefully and meticulously. INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] The T.I. parade was conducted by P.W.20, the then J.M.F.C., Cuttack. In his evidence he has clearly stated that on 15th January, 1999 he conducted the T.I. parade of accused Padia inside the Circle Jail, Choudwar. The accused was mixed up with ten other detenues, who were of more or less similar height and colour. The prosecutrix, P.W.22 and the driver P.W.17 one after the other successfully identified the accused Padia to be one of the depredators, who committed rape on the prosecutrix. In their evidence P. Ws.22 and 17 have also deposed that they were able to identify Padia in the T.I. parade. The prosecutrix identified the accused Padia in the dock. Similarly, P.W.20, the then J.M.F.C. also conducted further T.I. parade on 29th January, 1999. On the said date Tunia, the other accused was mixed up with 10 other detenues of similar height and colour. The prosecutrix, P.W.22 identified accused Tunia to be one of the culprits, who along with his accomplice committed gang rape on her, but then P.W.17, the driver of the Ambassador Car failed to identify the said accused. On the said date Tunia, the other accused was mixed up with 10 other detenues of similar height and colour. The prosecutrix, P.W.22 identified accused Tunia to be one of the culprits, who along with his accomplice committed gang rape on her, but then P.W.17, the driver of the Ambassador Car failed to identify the said accused. P.W.23 is the Associate Professor of the Department of F.M.T. of S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack. He had examined the accused Padia on police requisition. In course of examination, Padia gave a statement in Oriya, which was recorded by the doctor and marked as Ext.56. The statement reveals that on 9th January, 1999 at about 12 P.M. at night, the prosecutrix along with a male person came to "Subash Dhaba" near Trisulia Chhak where the three accused persons were taking dinner. The prosecutrix placed 289 orders for tea. From the discussion made between them, the accused persons could know that they were planning to go to Cuttack. After seeing the prosecutrix, they planned to enjoy the lady sexually and went ahead to Baranga Railway station and waited for the car. He admitted that by threat and duress showing a Bhujali, they committed the alleged crime and enjoyed the lady. He further added that there was no resistance from the side of the victim lady during the intercourse. P.W.23 also examined the other accused Tunia on police requisition on 27.1.1999. He found him capable of sexual intercourse. The said accused persons gave a brief statement in Oriya, which has been recorded in English and has been marked as Ext.57. His statement is also more or less similar to that of the other accused, i.e., Padia. He has also admitted to have sexually assaulted the victim, but then took the stand that there was absolutely no resistance. P.W.16 is the Finger Print Expert of State F.S.L., Rasulgarh. He has testified in Court that on comparison by scientific methods with the aid of lens, finger print viewer and other equipments he found that the finger prints appeared in the front door of the car tallied with the finger prints of the accused Padia. Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. Republic Of India [A.S.NAIDU, J.] The evidence of P.W.8 also reveals that all the accused persons had prior acquaintance with Biban, who is an absconder. The scooter was borrowed by Biban and was used for commission of the alleged crime. Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. Republic Of India [A.S.NAIDU, J.] The evidence of P.W.8 also reveals that all the accused persons had prior acquaintance with Biban, who is an absconder. The scooter was borrowed by Biban and was used for commission of the alleged crime. P.W.3 is the salesman of Nilakantha Filling Station situated at Trisulia, i.e., near the place of occurrence. He testified that at 10.30 P.M. in the night of 9.1.1999 the accused Padia went to the petrol pump with two others in the aforesaid scooter and filled the scooter with two liters of petrol. The conduct of the accused persons and the absconder is thus very much relevant u/s 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. P.W.1 is the doctor, who got examined the prosecutrix. Apart from answering other formal questions, the doctor has clearly stated on oath that the victim was walking with a gate of mild limping with widening gate, with help. The wearing apparels of the prosecutrix was torn in the front. The bra contained dirty browny colour stains. The evidence of the doctor further reveals that small abrasion redish brown in colour was situated vertically on the dorsal aspect of right wrist joint over the lower end of radious. On examination of the genital part, it was found that the victim was at the stage of menstruation. Basing upon the physical findings, the doctor came to the preliminary opinion that there was possibility of sexual intercourse and final opinion was reserved awaiting different laboratorical examination report and radiological examination report. 290 P.W.8 is the owner of the scooter. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, on the request of Biban, he allowed other accused Tunia to take the scooter to his village and asked him to return the same on the next date. P.W.9 is the star witness for the prosecution. He is a journalist by profession and was accompanying the prosecutrix in the car. He has given a vivid description of the entire incident. He has also stated as to how the accused persons snatched the gold chain and other materials from him. P.W.10 is the Scientific Officer of State S.F.L., Rasulgarh. He has examined the towel, which was spread on the field and over which the prosecutrix was said to have been raped by force. He has also stated as to how the accused persons snatched the gold chain and other materials from him. P.W.10 is the Scientific Officer of State S.F.L., Rasulgarh. He has examined the towel, which was spread on the field and over which the prosecutrix was said to have been raped by force. He found blood and semen stains, a patch of red colour stain besides seeds of weeds. They also seized the handkerchief containing blood stain and other small articles lying in the car. His evidence goes a long way to prove that in fact the towel was used by the accused persons for commission of the alleged crime. P.W.11 is the finger print expert. He has collected the finger prints and examined the specimen, which tallied with that of the accused. 12. With a view to connect the Appellants and the absconding accused with the crime, the prosecution though has examined number of witnesses, out of them the evidence of P.W.9 Sutanu Guru, who was accompanying the prosecutrix in the car, is very vital. The said witness has given a vivid description as to how the occurrence took place. During the commission of INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] the offence, he was not only assaulted, but was also robbed or his valuables. He has clearly stated that while he was sitting in the car, the miscreants raped the prosecutrix in his presence. He has also given a vivid description as to how the prosecutrix was ravished by the accused persons in the field. The said witness has been cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from him to disbelieve his version. Similarly, Nilakantha Rout, the driver of the vehicle has been examined as P.W.17. He is also an eye witness to the occurrence. He was held at the point of a revolver and was forcibly made to travel in the scooter as a hostage. He has also seen the occurrence. The statement made by the aforesaid P.W.17 inspires confidence. P.W.22 is the prosecutrix. She had given a vivid picture of the unfortunate episode. Her statement gets fully corroborated by the statement of P. Ws.9 and 17, the other two inmates of the car. He has also seen the occurrence. The statement made by the aforesaid P.W.17 inspires confidence. P.W.22 is the prosecutrix. She had given a vivid picture of the unfortunate episode. Her statement gets fully corroborated by the statement of P. Ws.9 and 17, the other two inmates of the car. The same is also further corroborated by the evidence of the doctor and the statement given by two the accused persons before the doctor, i.e., Ext.56 and Ext.57 vis-?-vis other evidence like Fingerprint report, evidence of the owner of the scooter, evidence of the Dhaba owner, evidence of the employee of the petrol pump and other evidence recorded in course of trial. That apart both the Appellants were identified by the prosecutrix in the T.I. parade held in jail under the supervision of the J.M.F.C.. The ornaments and other materials robbed from 291 the prosecutrix and P.W.9 were also identified in the T.I. parade. P.W.5 a Jeweller has deposed that the accused had sold the stolen gold articles to him. All these evidences go a long way to prove that the Appellants have committed the crime along with Biban. 13. A feeble attempt is made by Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that as both the accused have not been alleged to have committed rape, conviction u/s 372(2)(g), IPC is not maintainable. A similar point has been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, and in the case of Bhupinder Sharma v. State of M.P. : (2003) 8 SCC 551 , wherein it has been held that in cases of gang rape, the proof of completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required. 14. The statutory intention in introducing Explanation I in relation to Section 376(2)(g) appears to have been done with a view to effectively deal with the growing menace of gang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one, in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape and convict them under the said section. 15. In the case of Priya Patel Vs. 15. In the case of Priya Patel Vs. State of M.P. and Another the Supreme Court observed as follows: Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. Republic Of India [A.S.NAIDU, J.] .........By operation of the deeming provision, a person who has not actually committed rape, is deemed to have committed rape, even if only one of the group in furtherance of the common intention has committed rape. "Common intention" is dealt with in Section 34, IPC and provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. "Common intention" denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates a pre-arranged plan, a prior meeting of minds and an element of participation in action. The acts may be different and vary in character, but must be actuated by the same common intention, which is different from the same intention or similar intention. The sine qua non for bringing in application of Section 34, IPC is that the act must be done in furtherance of the common intention to do a criminal act. The expression "in furtherance of their common intention" as appearing in the Explanation to Section 376(2) relates to the intention to commit rape. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and as such, the evidence is not trustworthy. 17. So far as the submission with regard to the discrepancies is concerned, it is no more res integra that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. This aspect has been highlighted in extenso in the case of Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . 18. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. This aspect has been highlighted in extenso in the case of Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . 18. The prosecutrix in her evidence has given a vivid description as to how the accused persons abducted the car along with her and other companions, pulled her out of the car near an isolated place, took a towel from the car and spread the same on the ground and on the point of Bhujali, made her lie down on the towel, tore the front portion of her dress and ravished her one after the other. INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] 19. The testimony of the victim in a case of rape is very vital and unless there are compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, amounts to adding insult to injury. The Court should always put a question to itself as to why a lady who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. The court while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he/she is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is similarly entitled to great weight, absence of 293 corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she was an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity, making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, ), the supreme court observed as follows: A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness u/s 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. Republic Of India [A.S.Naidu, J.] more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114, which requires it to look for corroboration. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114, which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should 294 ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. .................. 20. In the case of State of U.P. v. Munshi AIR 2009 SC 370 , the Supreme Court observed as follows: It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. 21. The same view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P., and several other cases. 22. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. 21. The same view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P., and several other cases. 22. An analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, which we have perused very meticulously leaves no iota of doubt in our mind that INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] the findings arrived at by the Sessions Judge are just and proper and in conformity with the evidence and thus, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the said findings. We also find the oral evidence, particularly that of P. Ws.9, 17 and 22 (prosecutrix) to be reliable and trustworthy and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, and also the conviction and sentence imposed. 23. Before parting with the judgment what has shocked our judicial conscience all the more is that, one of the main accused, i.e., Biban, who is the master mind behind the entire crime and has raped and ravished the prosecutrix mercilessly, has not been arrested till date. In course of hearing also the prosecution failed to satisfy this Court the reason as to why the said person has not been arrested as yet. We express our strong disapproval of the approach on the part of the prosecution. Rape is the worst form of violence on a woman, perhaps worse than killing her. The criminal justice system when it comes to deal with protection of victims, should rise to a higher pedestal and prompt steps should be taken to see that an accused who has committed such a heinous crime is not allowed to move scot free, 295 without facing any trial. We, therefore, conclude with a direction to the Respondent to take effective steps for arresting the absconding accused Biban and to proceed against him in accordance with law. A report shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with regard to the steps taken and as to whether Biban has been arrested or not within three months from today. The report shall be placed before one of us after the same is submitted. An extract of this judgment should be communicated to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department for due compliance. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed