MANAS RANJAN THAKUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 18.7.1995 passed by Shri B. K. Patnaik, Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1995 convicting him Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year and acquitting him of the charge Under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case runs as follows : The prosecutrix (P.W.I) aged about fifteen to sixteen years and a resident of village Jamdalkha in the State of Madhya Pradesh and her boyfriend (P.W.3) aged about 25 years and a resident of a neighbouring village Kudapali, PS. Sohela, district Bargarh who were acquainted with each other, left together for Harishankar in the morning of 26.8.94 when the father of the prosecutrin threatened to assault P.W.3. After visiting the temple at Harishankar, they stayed together in the temple during the night and on the following morning they came to the house of P.W.2 in village Bileisathi under Patnagarh Police Station in the district of Bolangir who was known to P.W.3 being the father in law of the sworn friend of P.W.3. They stayed there for five days. It is alleged that in the night of 31.8.94, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'), a young boy aged about twentytwo years and a resident of village Berhampura. P.S. Patnagarh in the district of Bolangir, reached the house of P.W.2 and threatened P.W.3 to take him to the police station alleging that he had eloped the prosecutrix, as told by her father who was present in his house and that he squeezed the cheek of the prosecutrix and left the place. Again the accused came to the house of P.W.2 in another room and closed the door of that room from inside and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix for four times during the night and in the following morning he left that house. The prosecutrix and P.W.3 left together and on their way an Assistance Sub Inspector of Police, Patnagarh Police Station (P.W.5) detained them finding their movement suspicious and took them to the Patnagarh Police station and produced them before the Officer in charge of the P.S. (P.W.8). During interrogation the prosecutrix did not reveal the incident before P.W.8 and preferred to remain silent and hence both of them were detained in the P.S. during the night. In the next morning, i.e., on 2.8.94, P.W.3 orally reported about the occurrence before P.W.8 who reduced the same to writing (Ext. 1) and registered the case against the accused and directed the S.I. of the P.S. (P.W. 10) to take up investigation. During investigation. P.W.I 0 examined the prosecutrix, seized her saree and chadi (M.Os.I and II respectively), on production by her stating that she had put on the same at the time of occurrence. P.W. 10 examined the other witnesses, arrested the accused on 3.9.94 from his residence at Berhampura and seized his pant. The prosecutrix and the accused were sent for medical examination and the accused was forwarded to Court in custody on 4.9.94. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet Under Section 376, I.P.C and 3(1)(xi) of the Act again the accused who stood his trial.

(3.) THE plea of the defence is one of denial. According to the accused, he had advanced Rs. 2,000/ (Rupee two thousand) to P.W.2 for preparing of bricks and when P.W.2 did not comply, he demanded the money, for which this false case has been foisted against him at the instance of P.W.2.