NIRANJAN BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is not an uncommon case which this Court deals with Petitioner who has been convicted for the offence under Ss. 450/376. I.P.C as per the judgment dated 4.5.1998 of C.J.M. -cum -Asst. Sessions Judge. Khurda at Bhubaneswar in S.T. No. 190/55/293 of 1997/96 and the confirming judgment dated 10.12.2001 of Addl. Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court No. 2. Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No. 23/98/40/01 has preferred this revision challenging legality and correctness of the said orders of conviction.

(2.) At the stage of hearing on admission since the Petitioner's prayer for bail was refused by this Court, on the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on consent of learned Standing Counsel, the revision was taken up for hearing and disposal at the first instance and that is how though this is a criminal revision of the year 2002, the same stands disposed of in the following manner.

(3.) According to the prosecution the prosecutrix (P.W.5) and the Petitioner are the co -workers being the employees under the KONARK T.V. COMPANY situated at Bhubaneswar. As stated by the prosecutrix, on two instances Petitioner had borrowed respectively a sum of Rs. 500/ - and Rs. 1,000/ - as hand loans from her. When the latter loan of Rs. 1.000/ - was not returned by the Petitioner in due time, there was repeated demands from her which resulted in altercation between the two on some occasions preceding the date of occurrence. P.W.5 also alleged that in one occasion when she requested to return the money Petitioner proposed her to spent a night with him at Puri and to take back that amount and she had not only refused but retaliated to that conduct of the Petitioner. As alleged by the prosecutrix, on 18.7.1995 at about 11. P.M. while she was engaged in cooking in her rented house situated under Sahidnagar Police Station in Bhubaneswar township, Petitioner accompanied by two other unknown persons, entered into her house and at the point of Knife they threatened to kill her two years young daughter it she would create noise and thereafter Petitioner and the accompanying two persons raped her one after the other Prosecutrix further narrated that she along with her younger sister aged about 16 years and a younger brother together reside in that house after there was a matrimonial dispute between her and her husband. According to her, by the time of occurrence, her younger sister was witnessing T.V. programme in the nearby house of the land lady and she returned to the house soon after departure of the culprits. She (P.W. 5) narrated the incident to her sister and both of them cried. Prosecutrix further narrated that her brother returned to the house on the following day morning but she did not state anything about the rape except mentioning that Petitioner with his associates misbehaved her and showed a knife and she also restrained her brother from making a confrontation with the Petitioner. In her evidence prosecutrix has narrated that at the time of sexual intercourse with her culprits were using condom. On the following day morning i.e. on 19.7.1995 at 9. A.M. she went to her office and in the afternoon when she fainted she was taken to the E.S.I. Hospital at Bhubaneswar and she was given treatment. She has also stated in her evidence that on 19.7.1995, or on the subsequent date she did not narrate about the incident of rape to her colleagues because of he threatening given by the Petitioner. Ultimately, on 26.7.1995, at about 1.30 P.M. she lodged the written report (Ext -1) in the police station also narrated in her evidence that after the occurrence and before lodging the F.I.R. she had thought of committing suicide and she had left a suicide note with her colleague named Abhiram Barik. As it reveres from the Case Diary and the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 10) charge sheet was submitted : only against the Petitioner because identity and whereabouts of the other two rapists could not be known or traced.