PADU KHILLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner having been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 448/354 of the Penal Code and sentenced to two months imprisonment for conviction under Section 354 of the Penal Code and to imprisonment for one month for conviction under Section 448 of the Penal Code, preferred an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed the present revision had been filled challenging the orders of both the Courts below.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.1992 at about 10 P.M. in the night the informant -victim Dai Bagh (P.W. 1) was in her residential house. At that time her husband was absent at home. Since someone knocked at the door, thinking her husband has returned home she opened the door. As soon as the door was opened. It is alleged that the Petitioner forcibly entered inside the house, caught hold of her hand tightly, closed the door giving a kick to it and by showing a knife threatened her to stab in case she shouted. It is also alleged that thereafter the Petitioner undressed her and while doing so the saree of the victim was torn. Thereafter the Petitioner removed his wearing lungi and made the victim lie on the ground and while he was attempting to sleep on her the latter shouted and hearing her hulla the neighbours, namely Bhimana Peimei and Debadas Sonia, came to the spot. Seeing the neighbours the Petitioner left the victim and started running away holding his lungi in his hand. After return of her husband Kartik Bagh, the victim narrated the incident before him whereafter her husband reported the matter to the villagers and a meeting was convened by the village panch. Even though three times punch meetings were called, the same could not be held due to absence of the Petitioner and on the advice of the panch members the information was lodged in Orkel Police station three days after the incident i.e. on 28th September, 1997 at 3 P.M. On the basis of such information, investigation was taken up and charge -sheet was filed for commission of offences under Sections 448/354 of the Penal Code.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses out of whom. P.W. 1 is the victim lady herself, P.W.2 is the neighbour who ran to the spot after hearing the hulla of P.W.1, P.W. 3 is the husband of the informant (P.W. 1), P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the punch members, P.W. 7 is the doctor who examined the victim - and P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. On consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, the trial Court found the Petitioner guilty for commission of offences under Sections 448/354 of the Penal Code and convicted him thereunder. Challenging the said order of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred and the same having been dismissed, the present revision had been filed.