In the Matter at hand Madhusudan Das v. State of Odisha an appeal against the Trial Court’s judgement finding the appellant guilty of crimes covered by Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 370-A, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. The appellant, often referred to as “Tarini Baba,” was a local Tantrik who frequented communities while carrying a photograph of the goddess Tarini. By leading pujas, he demonstrated his paranormal abilities and won the respect of the informant’s family. The informant’s two kids, however, were reported missing the next day. When her father and other people tried to find her, the victim contacted her brother-in-law, who threatened to murder her. In addition, the appellant threatened to murder the victim if a complaint was made against him. After discovering the victim, the investigating officer discovered that the appellant had sold the victim and made a profit. The appellant was detained by the I.O. The appellant repeatedly raped the woman in Raipur and on the way to Jaipur, according to the trial court’s findings. The appellant also trafficked and sexually exploited her. In accordance with sections 366, 376(2)(n), 370-A, and 506 of the IPC, the appellant was found guilty. The defendant received a sentence of ten years of hard labour in prison with a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default, six months for a violation of Section 366, seven years with a payment of Rs. 5,000, three months for a violation of Section 370-A, and ten years, six months, seven years, and three months for a violation of Section 506.
Analysis of Court Decision
The Trial Court’s contested judgement was maintained by the Orissa High Court’s Single Judge Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo. The Trial Court’s judgement was upheld by the court without any errors or violations. The prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant abducted a juvenile and transported her to Gwalior with the intention of selling her. Because the victim was a juvenile and the appellant’s confession was credible, clear, and coherent, the court found the appellant guilty under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 370-A, and 506 of the IPC. The victim’s evidence that the appellant had raped her twice was likewise accepted by the court. The punishment was not harsh and the appellant’s activities were illegal, the court affirmed and sustained the challenged judgement.
The victim was determined by the court to have been a juvenile, between the ages of 16 and 17, when the offence occurred. Despite being unable to resist, she alleged that the appellant had raped her and threatened her. According to the prosecution, the appellant was a “Tantrik” who allegedly performed pujas and blood sacrifices in the victim’s home, inspiring the victim and her family to believe in the victim. The victim may have left the house alone without telling anybody due to this notion, and the prosecution’s evidence cannot be discounted by the victim’s lack of resistance while in the appellant’s presence.
CASE NAME – Madhusudan Das v. State of Odisha, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2019.