BIJOY KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case presents a sad tale of the victim girl Uma Bala Arora (P. W.2), aged between 18 and 20 years and studying in the S. K. D. A. V. Women's College at Rourkela and residing in one of the two blocks which housed its hostel intervened by a small road with her elder sister Suresh Bala Arora (P. W. 6), also a student of the same college and residing in the same hostel, of monstrous acts of the four appellants, namely, Brjoy Kumar Mohapatra, then aged about 30 years, doing business, Indramani Naik, 'hen aged about 32 years, working as a Helper in the Rourkela Steel Plant, Ganju alias Kamal alias Rajkamal Nandy, a contractor and Pradeep Kumar Das, then aged about 23 years as recorded by the trial court and claimed to be much less before us of which there is no legal evidence, a student who used to roam about near the women's hostel and in that process known to the inmates including the victim girl (P. W. 2) and called Ghoda Muhan (horse -faced). The appellants committed lurking house -tres -pass into the women's hostel in order to commit the offence of kidnapping/abduction and rape of the victim girl Uma Bala, being armed with deadly weapons, such as, knives, at about 0.30 hours of September 26, 1977, having all come on bicycles. They abducted Uma Bala for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her forcibly by getting her seated on the bicycle of the appellant Bijoy Kumar and taking her away to a field at Jhirpani, situated at a distance of about two and a half kilometers from her hostel threatening her all the way with dire consequences, in spite of the protest and hue and cry raised by Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1), Watcher who had been watching on the verandah of the hostel and Suresh Bala Arora (P. W. 6), Saniukta Mohanty (P. W. 7), Sumitra Dutt (P. W. 9) and other lady students residing in the hostel by keeping the victim girl and these witnesses under grave fear of assault and three of them, namely, Bijoy Kumar, Rajkamal and Indramani committed rape on her at Jhirpani, while the other appellant, namely, Pradeep Kumar, had been asked to stand by and watch persons, if any, coming to that place and the appellants voluntarily caused hurt to the victim girl by means of knives and criminally intimidated her. All the offences had been committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants.

(2.) ON being informed about this incident, P. W. 8, a Lecturer in the S.K.D.A.V. Women's College, contacted the police station and the Deputy Inspector -General, the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Rourkela on telephone. On the basis of her information, a station diary entry (Ext. ll) was made at the police station and the Police agencies were alerted for the detection of the crime and the criminals. The victim girl Uma Bala, who had been left alone in a helpless condition with profuse bleeding from her person both as a result of multiple injuries inflicied on her and owing to the forcible sexual intercourse by three of the culprits at a time when she was having her monthly menstrual period, had left the place of sexual assault and was moving in great agony when she was seen by the Police Constable (P. W. 14) at about 3 a. m. coming weeping from the Jhirpani side where the crime of rape had been committed towards Sector -20 on the Ring Road having practically no wearing apparels on her person which had been torn and she informed P. W. 14 and his companion Constable that four persons had committed rape on her forcibly. At that time, the Superintendent of Police, the Inspector of Police and others arrived on that spot, some wearing apparels from the hostel were brought and the victim girl put on the clothings over the torn clothings which she was wearing. The Sub -Inspector of Police (P. W. 16), then attached to the Township Police Station at Rourkela, had, in the meantime, rushed to the hostel on receiving information about the kidnapping of a girl by some culprits and at the hostel, the first information report (Ext. 14) was lodged by P. W. 1 and investigation followed in the course, of which, the victim girl and the appellants were medically examined, steps were taken for the identification of the suspects by P. Ws. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9, the incriminating articles were seized, the confessional statements (Exts. 18 and 19) of two of the appellants, namely, Indramani and Pradeep Kumar, were recorded and on the completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was placed against the appellants who, on their commitment to the Court of Session, stood trial being charged under Sections 458, 366, 324, 506 and 376, all read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

(3.) TO bring home the charges to the appellants, eighteen witnesses had been examined for the prosecution of whom P. W. 2 was the victim girl and P. Ws. 6, 7 and 9 were the inmates of the hostel. As earlier indicated, P. W. 8, had intimated the Police authorities on telephone about the kidnapping of one of the girl students from the hostel on the basis of which the station diary entry (Ext. 11) had been recorded by P. W. 11, a Sub -Inspector of Police, attached to the Township Police Station, P. W. 1 was the first informant. P. W. 3, was the Doctor who had examined the appellants and P. W. 4 was the Doctor who had examined the victim girl. P. W. 10, a Senior Pathologist in the Ispat General Hospital at Rourkela, had conducted the examination of the vaginal swab of P. W. 2 and Had detected spermotozoa therein. P. W. 12 had testified about the suspicious movements of the appellants Rajkamal and Bijoy Kumar who had stayed in her house and had left it on Friday when the Police authorities came to that place and P. W. 12 had noticed two knives with covers (M. Os. VII and VIII) lying inside the bush of her court -yard and on production these two knives were seized by the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police attached to the Lephripara Police Station on October 2, 1977. P. Ws. 5 and 15, two Magistrates, had conducted the test identification parades. P. W. 15 had recorded the two confessional statements (Exts. 18 and 19). P. W. 16 had investigated into the case. The appellants had not examined any witness in their defence.