Supreme Court declined leave to appeal against acquittal where prosecution failed to prove victim's minority, absence of physical evidence like injury or spermatozoa, hostile witnesses, inconsistencies in victim's statement, and delayed FIR suggesting consensual act.
Leave to appeal against acquittal of opposite parties is declined and petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.94 of 2014
State of Orissa …. Petitioner
Mr. G. N. Rout, ASC
-versus-
Amita Baitha and others
…. Opposite Parties
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No.
13.07.2023
Page 1 of 3
opinion was that she was between 18 and 19 years of age. Even the date of birth in the school admission register indicated that on the date of occurrence she was 17 years 9 months and 11 days, which was on the border line. This evidence was therefore not sufficient to persuade the trial Court that she was below 18 years of age.
Page 2 of 3
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy) Judge
M. Panda
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Oriss a, Cu ttack Date: 14-Jul-2023 11:05:20
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the victim was a minor to attract Section 366 IPC
Whether the prosecution proved forcible abduction and rape beyond reasonable doubt
Whether the Supreme Court can grant leave to appeal against the acquittal
5 provisions across 5 enactments
State of Orissa
Amita Baitha
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
