NIRANJAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, who is suffering incarceration since 3.10.2006 being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Jajpur in S.T. Case No. 30 of 2007 has preferred this appeal. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Jajpur convicted the Appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "I.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl who happens to be the "BHANIJI" (sister's daughter) of the informant Sarat Chandra Panda (P.W. 6) was prosecuting her studies when the occurrence took place by remaining with P.W. 6. It is alleged that on the evening of 24.5.2005 around 7 P.M. the victim along with her friends proceeded to witness "SAPTA" (worshipping of the village deity) where the Appellant seeing the victim playing alone dragged her to the nearby "Ankura Badi" and there undressed the victim by removing her frock and panties and gagged her mouth with a towel when the victim cried aloud and after making her to lie on the ground ravished her. It is alleged that the Appellant also threatened the victim not to disclose the matter before anybody or else she would be done to death. After the incident, the victim reported the matter to her aunt (MAAIN). The informant Sarat Chandra Panda (P.W. 6), who is the uncle of the victim reported the matter to the father of the victim, Santosh Panda (P.W. 5) in his village and thereafter, the father of the victim as well as the informant (P.W. 6) complained before the father of the Appellant, but when the father of the Appellant did not take any action, information was lodged before the O.I.C., Binjharpur Police Station in writing vide Ext. 2. Police on receipt of the said information took up investigation of the case and on completion of the investigation placed the charge-sheet against the Appellant to stand his trial.

(3.) The plea of the Appellant was of complete denial of the occurrence.