PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are two out of the three accused persons to face the trial in S.T. Case No. 164 of 2000 in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh. The 3rd accused then was said to be absconding. Appellants was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 450/366/376/ 307/34, I.P.C. on the allegation that in the night between 22/23-4-1999, they entered into the residential premises of the prosecutrix (P.W. No. 1) when she was sleeping on the inner varanclah of the house by the side of her husband, who is hard of hearing and also having a defective power of speech. Her mouth was gagged, she was lifted and taken to a paddy field belonging to Batu Pradhan and she was ravished by all the three accused persons one after the other. It is also alleged that she was overpowered by the two accomplices when the 3rd person (accused) committed rape and that arrangement on rotation went on till all the three accused persons committed rape on her. After committing rape they trampled on her body and that made her unconscious. She was discovered lying naked on the following day morning by the searching party including her mother-in-law and co-villagers. On the aforesaid allegation, charge was framed for the above noted offences. Appellants denied to the allegation and claimed for trial.

(2.) To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as 11 out of 23 charge-sheeted witnesses. Out of them, as noted above, P.W. No. 1 is the victim lady, P.W. 2 is her mother-in-law, P.W. 3 is the elder brother of her husband, P.W. 5 is a co- villager and Grama Rakhi to associate in search in the night of occurrence and P.W. No. 4 is another co-villager and he accompanied when the senseless body of the P.W. No. 1 was carried to the hospital at Tigiria. P.W. 6 is a witness to the seizures, P.W. No. 7 is a Police-Constable who was commanded to produce the P.W. No. 1 before a lady Doctor for medical examination. P.W. 8 is the male Doctor who was then serving at Tigiria and P.W. 9 is a lady Doctor who was then serving at Athagarh and both of them examined P.W. No. 1 when she was brought to the respective hospitals. P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the two Investigating Officers who conducted investigation, one after the other The F.I.R., the seizure-lists, requisitions for medical examination and opinion, medical reports, report from the F.M.T. Department and the Chemical Examiner, F.S.F.L., Rasulgarh have been marked as Exts. 1 to 18. Wearing apparels of the accused and the victim and the cut pieces therefrom have been marked as M.Os. II to IX. Seminal fluid of the accused persons were marked as M.Os. X and XI and the electricity bulb seized in the case was marked as M.O.I. In furtherance of their plea of innocency, appellants examined scriber of the F.I.R. a charge-sheet witness, as D.W. No. 1. No document or M.Os. were tendered in evidence by them.

(3.) The offences complained against the appellants being of trespassing to commit offence, kidnapping and committing gang rape, which is punishable in accordance with the provision under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C., the trial Court considered the contention of the rival parties and recorded the findings that