Dhira v. State of Odisha
In the High Court of Orissa
BLAPL 3937/ 2017
Before Justice S.K. Sahoo
Decided on September 26, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving kidnapping and gang rape of a minor, along with recording the act and threatening the victim’s family to withdraw an existing case

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 366, 376D)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (Section 439)
• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Section 4, 6, 14)
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 9)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The prosecution case states that one of the accused persons is the victim’s (a minor female) father. He pretended to love her and kept a physical relationship.
• He and his friends committed rape on the victim and recorded the video. He showed the video to the informant and threatened to do the same with her elder daughter if they did not withdraw a previous case.
• Another accused person admitted before the Investigating Officer that he and his brother kept a physical relationship with the victim. He had also promised marriage to the victim. The police seized a mobile phone containing the video from the said brother’s house.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the victim had an affair with the other accused persons. She fled away from the house of her own will. The police has not conducted any Test Identification Parade (TIP) to identify the accused or the seized mobile phone. Hence, the evidence is not admissible.
• The government advocate submitted that the Investigating Officer, through DCP Cuttack, requested call detail records of the victim’s mobile number. During the petitioner’s arrest, the police found the victim’s mobile phone in his custody.

Opinion of the Bench

• There is consistency in the victim’s statements while naming the accused persons who have committed gang rape. TIP is not mandatory, and the victim’s identification before the trial court is sufficient.
• The call detail records available on record clearly indicate the petitioner’s involvement in the act.

Final Decision

• Considering the evidence on record and the gravity of the offences, the court rejected the bail application.