TUTU DIGAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC vide Judgment dtd. 23/11/1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further term of three months.

(2.) Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 4/5/1991 at about 7 PM, the victim (name withheld) had been to the shop of one Khalia Biswal of Sautikia to purchase 'Gudakhu' wearing a gold Sorisia Mali (necklace). While returning she was stopped by accused Tutu Digal (present appellant) and Kalidas Digal near a jackfruit tree. Both were armed with knives and caught hold of the victim and snatched away the gold Mali from her neck. The victim said that she would disclose the matter before her parents but the accused persons decided to kidnap her at the point of knife. Being fearful of her life she followed them. They reached Dandapadar village in the morning from where accused Tutu and the victim got into a bus and went to village Dadangia. The accused confined the victim in the house of one Nira Digal and raped her against her will by threatening her of death. She could not go out in the daytime as the family members of Nira always guarded her. The victim's father after a long search came to know from reliable source that accused Tutu had kidnapped his daughter. Accordingly on 12/6/1991 the victim's father and one Lalu Mallik rescued her from the house of Nira. The victim narrated everything before her father. The matter was attempted to be reported at the police station but the same was not accepted. As such the victim directly filed a complaint in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Baliguda being ICC No.554 of 1991 alleging commission of the offences under Ss. 363/365/376/392/109 IPC. The learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the complainant and conducted enquiry under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. in course of which some witnesses were examined. Basing on such enquiry, learned SDJM took cognizance of the offences and committed the case for trial to the Court of Session.

(3.) The accused persons took the plea of denial. Besides, accused Tutu took the specific plea that he was engaged as a field servant by the father of the victim but was not paid his wages for which he had threatened to convene a village meeting and to file a case against him. Therefore, the victim's father had foisted the case against him out of grudge. The plea of accused Kalidas was that he had spoken in favour of accused Tutu in the village meeting for which the victim's father also bore a grudge against him.