LAWS(ORI)-2003-4-7

SANIA JANI Vs. STATE

Decided On April 02, 2003
Sania Jani, Petitioner Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opposite party-State.

(2.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred inter alia challenging the order dated 10-5-2002 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2001 confirming an order dated 25-8-1990 passed by the C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1997, convicting the petitioner under Sections 450/376, IPC and sentencing him to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 450, I.P.C. with direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.

(3.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short, facts alleged by the prosecution are that on 29-8-1996 at about 3 p.m. when the prosecutrix was in the kitchen of her house all alone, the petitioner entered there and had sexual intercourse with her against her will and fled away. Immediately after the incident, the prosecutrix reported the matter to her married daughter who was residing in the same village and both of them decided to wait for the husband of the prosecutrix. On the same evening, on the basis of a complaint made by the husband of the prosecutrix, a Panchayati was convened and as the petitioner did not attend the same, no decision could be taken. Thereafter FIR was lodged at the police station. The defence was one of complete denial and it was further stated that the case had been falsely initiated against the petitioner out of a grudge. It was further submitted that the family of the prosecutrix was in possession of certain lands belonging to the petitioner and as the former was asked to hand over possession thereof to the petitioner, while handing over possession, the husband of the prosecutrix had threatened the petitioner with dire consequences.