SUKRU GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant impugns the order of the Special Judge-cumSessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 398 of 1993 convicting him under Section 376, IPC read with Section 3(2){v) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) On the basis of an FIR lodged on 4-9-1993 by Dasamu Bhatra (P.W. 4) alleging that on the said day at 1.00 p.m. while his wife Sanmati Bhatrani (P.W. 1) was collecting firewood in a nearby jungle, known as 'Dobari Jungle', the appellant who was collecting cowdung in the said jungle told her that a big piece of wood was lying nearby in the jungle. P.W. 1 however, refused to go there. It was alleged that thereafter the appellant forcibly pulled her down on the ground and in spite of her resistence committed rape on her inside that jungle by raising the saree of P.W. land also removing the pad which P.W. 1 was using as she was having her monthly menstruation. While the appellant was committing the crime, P.W. 2 Lachhminath Bhatra arrived at the spot, seeing whom the appellant left P.W. 1 and fled away. Due to rape on her P.W. 1 had profuse bleeding. She reported the matter to her husband P.W. 4 who lodged the report before police at 6.00 p.m. the very day. On the basis of such report, G.R. Case No. 383 of 1993 was registered. After investigation, prosecution submitted charge sheet against the appellant who faced the trial. The plea of the appellant was complete denial. He further stated that a day prior to the alleged occurrence, he had dispute with informant (P.W. 4) and his wife the alleged victim (P.W. 1) regarding landed property which had culminated in a quarrel and in order to harass the appellant the case had been falsely foisted against him.

(3.) To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited eleven documents. Defence examined two witnesses and did not exhibit any document in support of its plea. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 was Sanmati Bhatrani, the alleged victim. She corroborated the FIR story. P.W. 2 was Lachhminath Bhatra who was stated to have seen the alleged occurrence. P.W. 3 was Lachhma Bhatrani, a resident of the village and near the spot of occurrence before whom P.W. 1 was stated to have narrated the incident soon thereafter. P.W. 4 was Dasamu Bhatra P.W. 1's husband before whom P.W. 1 stated to have narrated the alleged incident whereafter he had reported the matter to police. P.W. 5 was Damuru Pujari before whom also P.W. 1 had narrated the alleged incident. P.W. 6 was the Lady Assistant Surgeon who had examined the alleged victim on police requisition. P.W. 7 was S. Venkataswamy, the A.S.I. of Police of Kosagumuda Outpost before whom P.W. 4 had lodged the FIR and was one of the investigating officers. P.W. 8 was the O.I.C. of Kodinga P. S., the other Investigating Officer who had submitted charge-sheet in the case. Out of the defence witnesses, D.W. 1 was Laikhana Bhatra who deposed about the dispute between the appellant and P.W. 4 over escavation of a drain on the land of the appellant and the quarrel ensuing thereafter. D.W. 2 was Hari Mirgan who deposed about the land dispute which was reported to him by the appellant.