(1.) THE appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Koraput -Nabarangpur -Malkangiri -Rayagada, Jeypore in Sessions Case No.172 of 1999 convicting him under Sections 376/511 and 506 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 506 IPC, both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) THIS is a case which reveals as to how a man for his lust loses his rationality and conscience. The appellant, it is alleged, attempted to rape is own minor daughter. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts are that the informant and the victim girl aged a little less than twelve years were the wife and daughter respectively of the appellant. The informant gave birth to three daughters and two sons through the appellant, the victim girl being the eldest. The appellant was addicted to liquor and invariably each day he used to return dunk to his house and assault his wife and children. It so happened that on 23rd February, 1999 the appellant quarreled with the informant and threatened to assault her. Being enraged the informant left for her fathers place leaving her children. In that night, the victim girl, her sisters and brothers slept on the floor of their house after taking their meals. The appellant returned home a little later and asked the victim girl to serve food. The victim girl served dinner to her father and arranged his bed. The appellant slept on a cot. One of the daughters of the appellant went to the house of a neighbour, Hanu by name. In the night the appellant approached the victim girl to come and sleep with him on the cot but the victim girl declined. Thereafter the appellant by applying force lifted the victim girl from the floor and made her lie down on the cot. He removed her underwear and when the victim daughter protested, the appellant threatened to stab her by knife. he gagged her mouth by putting a cloth and tried to have forcible intercourse with her, but then there was difficulty in penetration. The victim daughter struggled and tried to escape from the clutches of her father and in the process she fell down on the floor. The appellant then repeated his action on the floor. Having no other way out, the victim daughter pinched the thigh of her baby brother who started crying. Hearing the cries of the baby, a neighbour, namely, Premabati shouted and thereafter the appellant left the victim. The victim girl thereafter went to the house of Premabati with her brother and wanted to sleep there. At that time one Surunda came to the house of Prembati. Premabati then asked Surunda to take the victim girl to his house. On the following morning the victim girl went to her mother and narrated the entire incident to her. Thereafter a meeting of the community was convened and on being questioned the appellant said that as the victim daughter was not born to him, he had done as alleged. Thereafter FIR was lodged on 2.3.1998 though the alleged incident took place on 23rd/24th of February, 1998. On the basis of the FIR, G.R. Case No.63 of 1998 was registered for alleged commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC and the appellant faced his trial. During investigation the investigating officer had examined the witnesses, seized the underwear and a Chadar (Ext.1), sent the victim girl for medical examination on 2.3.1998 and so also the appellant, collected the required samples and on completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted.
(3.) DURING the trial prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1 was the informant, P.W.2 was a witness to seizure, P.W.3 was a radiographer, P.W.4 was the victim girl. P.W.5 was the Ward member of the locality, P.W.6 was the doctor who had examined the victim and P.W.7 was the investigating officer.