KAYA ALIAS SIPAI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner having been found guilty for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment by both the Courts below has preferred this revision. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 376 of the Penal Code for committing rape on one Smt. Chuguri alias Sonia Naik (p.w. 1) and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.1998 while the victim was digging soil in the outskirt of the village, the petitioner who was hiding in a nearby ditch forcibly dragged her to the ditch and committed rape on her. On the date of occurrence the husband of the victim was absent and he had gone to Paradeep. Therefore, the victim reported about the incident to her uncle in law and mother in law who advised her to wait till arrival of her husband. After the husband of the victim came back from Paradeep, the matter was reported to him and a village Panch was convened and since no fruitful result was achieved, on 8.1.1999 the victim along with her husband went to the Police Station and reported the incident. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of the said offence. The plea of the petitioner is complete denial of the occurrence and it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that due to previous dispute, the case has been foisted falsely. Relying upon the evidence of P.W. 1 both the Courts below convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the submissions of the learned cbunsel appearing for the petitioner, it is necessary to look into the evidence adduced before the trial Court. P.W. 1 is the victim. She in her deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence while she was working in the field the petitioner came and caught hold of her and dragged her to a ditch nearby, laid her down there and committed rape. After committing rape the petitioner went away from the spot. She has further stated in her deposition that she disclosed the incident to her uncle as her husband was absent and her uncle advised to wait till arrival of her husband. Near about ten days after the incident, her husband came back home and he was told about the incident and thereafter, she along with her husband went to the Police Station for lodging the F.I.R. The husband of the victim has been examined as P.W. 2. In his deposition he has stated that on the date of occurrence he was at Paradeep and he returned after eight days. After coming back home neither he was told by P.W. 1 about the occurrence nor he accompanied P.W. 1 to Police Station for lodging the F.I.R. P.W.4 is the mother in law of the victim and she has denied any knowledge about the occurrence and has specifically stated that P.W. 1 never stated anything to her. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution except the R.I. and I.O. have turned hostile. Therefore, the statement of the victim that immediately after the occurrence she had reported the matter before her uncle and husband has no corroboration. On the other hand, both of them have specifically denied such statement of the victim. In the F.I.R. the victim has alleged that the incident was also reported to her mother in law, but such statement of the victim has been denied by the mother in law who has been examined as P.W.4.