RABINDRANATH BALLIARSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Rabindranath Balliarsingh has been convicted u/S. 376 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years by judgment dated 11-6-1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1992. The said judgment of conviction has been assailed by the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) Prosecution case as revealed in the FIR is as follows : On 13-11-1991 at about 10 a.m. while the victim P.W. 1 was returning from a rivulet near village Banjamaha under Daringibadi Police Station in the district of Phulbani, after washing her clothes, the appellant dragged her and committed rape on her despite her protest by gagging her mouth with his hand. At that time P.Ws. 2 and 3 happened to pass by that way and seeing them the appellant fled away from the spot. The Victim narrated the incident to P.Ws. 2 and 3 and after returning to her house narrated the same to her husband (P.W. 5). On the next day a meeting of the villagers was convened by P.W. 5 in which the mother and a cousin of the appellant agreed to pay fine, locally known as Pranjutopu, payable to the Panch members by the person accused of raping a Harijan woman. In case payment of Pranjutopu is made, no criminal case is instituted against the accused. In the present case, since no payment of fine was made within the stipulated period of eight days the case was instituted on 25-1-1991 on the oral report of P.W. 1 before the O.I.C., Daringibadi P.S. (P.W. 8) which was reduced to writing as per Ext. 2. During investigation P.W. 8 examined the victim and the witnesses, seized one tin Diba in which the victim was carrying her clothes and the saree put on by her at the time of the occurrence. The victim was sent for medical examination. Attempt to arrest the appellant was in vain and he surrendered in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Balliguda on 31-1-1992. The appellant was taken in police custody for interrogation and medical examination. After completion of the formalities of investigation, P.W. 8 submitted charge-sheet against the appellant who stood his trial. The defence plea was one of denial and false implication of the appellant due to previous enmity.

(3.) In all eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to bring home the charge against the appellant. Out of them P.W. 1 is the victim woman, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the two witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 4 is a witness to the seizure of the Dibu (M.O.I) and the saree (M.O.II). P.W. 5 is the husband of the victim. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the medical officers who examined the victim and the appellant respectively. P.W. 8 is the investigating Officer. One witness has been examined in support of the defence case.