SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was the District Malaria Officer of Kalahandi at the relevant time was accused of having committed the offence under section 376, I.P.C. on P.W. 6, a Lady Supervisor in the I.C.D.S. Project in the district of Kalahandion 1.3.1987. On conviction the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year more and fine amount has been directed to be paid to the victim P.W. 6. He has also been convicted under section 342, I.P.C. and has been further sentenced thereunder to R.I. for three months with direction for the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence passed under section 376, I.P.C. The narration of facts alleged by the prosecution is that 1.3.1987 being a holiday, P.W. 6 was at her residence at Jubarajpur when she was sent information by the appellant through P.W. 2, a female worker in Anganvadi in Mahulpatna along with a jeep that she was being required by her boss the District Social Welfare Officer of Bhawanipatna and she was to come in the jeep. Getting such information P.W. 6 came in the jeep. At Mahulpatna the jeep stopped and P.W, 2 and her Assistant who had accompanied P.W. 6 in the jeep from her residence got down. There the driver of the jeep came and sat in the rear seat and the appellant getting on the driverTs seat drove the jeep towards Bhawanipatna. There was also another person sitting in the jeep at the front named Prasanna Kumar Tripathy who was the Malaria Inspector of Thuamul Rampur. Reaching Bhawanipatna at about 11 p.m. the jeep stopped at the house of the appellant where he got down, went inside and asked the P.W. 6 to come in saying that the D.S.W.O was there. When P.W. 6 went inside, her bag was carried inside by a peon. The appellant thereafter closed the door which being questioned by P.W. 6, he offered her some food, which she declined. Thereafter, the appellant took his food and after washing his hands caught hold of P.W. 6 and tried to ravish her. She protested such attempts, but ultimately got tired and lost her senses. On regaining her senses in the early hours of the morning she discovered her clothes to be in disarray and she to have been cohabited with. On asking the appellant the reason for his such behaviour, the appellant merely kept silent and smiled. At this time, P.W. 3, the driver of the C.D.P.O, Thuamul-Rampur (P.W. 4) and the Junior Engineer of the said Block came to the house of the appellant and enquired about P.W. 6. They told P. W. 6 that having heard that she was ill and had come to Bhawanipatna for treatment, they had gone to the hospital but not finding her there had come to the house of the appellant in search of her. The Junior Engineer having asked her about her welfare and health, she could not tell them anything but only cried. P.W. 3 brought a rickshaw in which P.W. 6 went to the bus-stand and there P.W. 3 and the Junior Engineer helped her to get into a Thuamul-Rampur bus. At the destination she got down near the house of the C.D.P.O (P.W. 4), a lady named Matilda Dung Dung. There she took her bath but did not take any food and cried when P.W. 4 offered her food. Leaving her in the house P.W. 4 went to her office and on returned there from she again put persistent questions to P.W. 6 as to why she was crying but she did not answer anything and also did not take any food in the night. Next morning when P. W. 4 again questioned her she revealed the facts to her. Then P.W. 4 asked her to put it in writing. She wrote the facts as per Ext. 3 whereafter both she and P.W. 4 came to Bhawanipatna. They reached there in. the evening and next day they went to the police station and lodged the report Ext. 3 which was treated as the F.I.R. and investigation was taken up successively by P.Ws. 9,10 and 11. After completion of investigation, charge Sheet was submitted and the appellant was made to stand the trial.

(2.) Apart from the witnesses already referred to, the other witnesses figuring in the case are P.W. I, the Professor and N.C.D. of Gynaecology of the M.K.C.G. Medical College-Hospital, Berham pur who had examined P.W. 6 on 10.3.1987, P.W. 5 a non-consequential witness, P.W. 7 a Surgery Specialist who had examined the appellant and P.W. 8 the Assistant Malaria Officer in the Malaria Office at Bhawanipatna who was working under the appellant. He has proved the log book of the jeep bearing registration number ORH 1926 belonging to their Department and deposed on the basis of the log book that on 1.3.1987 the jeep had visited Mahulpatna, Jaipatna, Rangmal and was back to the headquarters at 11.30 p.m. The appellant examined himself as the defence witness.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was one of complete denial though he admitted P.W. 6 to have stayed in his house at night on 1.3.1987 and suggested to P. W. 6 during her deposition that she was suffering and had come to Bhawanipatna in his jeep for treatment and because she was suspecting that she had conceived through her illicit connection with the Junior Engineer Shri Kharsel, she had filed a false case against him at his instance so that Shri Kharsel might escape from his liability. It was his further plea that he was impotent since 1982 and held no capacity to commit sexual acts.