DEBIDAS RUDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals were directed against the judgment dated 20.1.1995 and conviction dated 21.1.1995 for the offence under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code passed in connection with S.T. Case No. XXXV of 1993 by Sri R. Chakraborty, learned Additional sessions Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore. The learned Judge was pleased to sentence the appellant Debidas Rudra to under go imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine pf Rs. 5,000/-, in default rigorous improsonment for one year. The learned judge was again pleased to sentence the other appellants namely Sena @ Soumendra Ray, Nupur @ Amitava Pattanayak and Topi @ Sarnendu Chowdhury to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The fact of the case in brief is that on 28.8.1991 at about 7.30 p.m. Mahasweta Majhi a girl of 17/18 years along with Sk. Abu Taher went to 'Chowdhury lodge' at Contai town and stayed there in a room. They recorded their particulars in the register of the lodge in different names. In the midnight the appellants knocked the door of the said room giving it out that they were from police station. The door was opened and the appellants entered the room. They took out Abu Taher and confined him in some other place. The appellants thereafter committed rape on the defacto-complainant, Mahasweta Majhi one after another. Devidas Rudra, one of the appellants is a police officer of Contai Police Station. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under section 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penel Code. The case after having been committed and thereafter transferred to the Court of the learned trial judge, the learned trial Judge had framed charge under section 376 (2)(g) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As many as 21 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and after completion of trial the learned Judge had passed the judgment and found the appellants guilty for committing offence under section 376(2)(g) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Balai Roy, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted before us that the victim girl did not say anything specifically as regards rape by the other appellants than Debidas Rudra. It is pointed out by him that from the very beginning the victim girl started hinting her name and the purpose of the going to the lodge in question and she also appeared to have used the different names at different places. Mr. Roy has further argued that the conduct of the accused persons as claimed by the victim girl is not inconsonance with the natural human conduct inasmuch as, it is claimed, the accused persons allowed the victim girl to go away instead of keeping a close vigil on her movement immediately after the alleged occurrence of rape. Mr. Roy has heavily banked upon the statement of the victim girl as a witness before the trial Court that she has lodged complaint twice and that she was examined twice by the medical officer. It is pointed out by him that there was no order of the Court concerned for the examination of the victim girl on the second occasion. It is further argued by Mr. Roy that the purported report of the examination of the victim girl for the first time has not been produced before the Court. Mr. Roy has pointed out that there was not mark of siemens or blood on the bed-sheet and the saya (petty coat) was washed after the occurrence. Mr. Roy has further argued before us that from the evidence of the witnesses it appears that one Kayum and the other Minu Gharai are the best witnesses in the case, but Minu Gharai has not been examined by the prosecution and the evidence of Kayum is contradictory. It is further pointed out by Mr. Roy that there was delay in examination of the witnesses by the ID and such delay remain unexplained. Mr. Roy has referred to a number of case laws which we shall discuss at the appropriate point of time. Mr. S. Moitra, the learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits before us that the defence has hit the bush around in the cross-examination of the P.W.1, the victim girl and except some suggestions there was no substantive evidence coming out from the P.W.1 to help the defence in any way. It is pointed out by Mr. Moitra that there is adequate explanation under what circumstances and why the victim girl was examined twice by the Medical Officer Mr. Moitra has further argued that there was actually only one First information Report and the evidence of the P.W.I in this regard that there were two FIR was the sequel of confusion created in her mind. Mr. Moitra has also referred to a number of case laws which will be dealt with at the appropriate place and time.