DEVU SAMAL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 20 th May, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting him for offence under Section 376 IPC and the order on sentence dated 22 nd June, 2000 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that primarily two witnesses have been examined against the Appellant. The testimony of the Prosecutrix PW1 does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. In her examination-in-chief she states that the Appellant raped her at his house, however, in her cross-examination she states that she was at her residence. According to her the Appellant came to the premises where she was working and the landlady opened the house thereafter the Appellant took her to Sujan Singh Park. Though the clothes were stated to be seized however, no statement of the Prosecutrix has been recorded identifying the seized clothes. The PCR call received by the police was regarding a quarrel between the parties. Further the Prosecutrix stated that when rape was committed her feet were tied by the Appellant. Further the FSL report does not fortify the claim of the Prosecutrix. Though semen was found on the bed cover and the underwear of the prosecutrix, however, the same did not match with that of the Appellant. Further the vaginal smear gave AB group positive whereas on the bed sheet group B was found. Even as per the MLC there is no external injury on the prosecutrix except a cut on the lip though she has alleged that her legs and feet were tied. In view of the contradictory uninspiring evidence of the prosecutrix the Appellant is liable to be acquitted.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the Prosecutrix who appeared in the witness box has clearly deposed about the rape committed on her. Though there are certain contradictions in the crossexamination however, she has stated that during the mid night the Appellant raped her by force at his quarter without her consent. The Appellant further gave her slap and threatened that he would tie her feet with her chin. The Prosecutrix was medically examined after the incident and as per the MLC there was cut mark on the lip which corroborates the version of the prosecutrix. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.