STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KRISHNA BADAIK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has called in question the order of acquittal dated 27.09.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in S.T. Case No. 92 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 376(2)(g)/366/323/34 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 92/24 of 1993.

(2.) Case of the Prosecution in short is the following :

(3.) Prosecution in order to bring home the charges, in total examined 16 witnesses. P.W. 1 is the girl who had gone for witnessing Durgapuja and had accompanied the two girls for certain distance for urination. P.W. 2 is that girl who managed to escape and she is none other than the cousin sister of the other girl who is the victim examined as P.W.9. P.W. 3 is that Andrias Horo who had reached at the spot at the time of rape. P.W. 4 is the Radiologist who had conducted ossification test in order to ascertain the age of the victim girl. P.W. 5 is a Police Constable who had accompanied the victim for medical examination, P.W. 6 is a person who had gone to witness the festival, witness to the seizure is P.W. 7. The Sarapanch of the locality has been examined as P.W. 8. P.W. 10 is the initial investigating Officer when P.W. 11 is another person who has present in the festival ground, P.W. 12 is the other doctor who had examined the victim (P.W.9). Another witness present in the festival during the time has been examined as P.W.13. Another witness to the seizure has been examined as P.W. 14 as also P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and finally submitted charge-sheet. Thus, P.W. 1 is said to be an eye witness to the initial part of the alleged occurrence, P.W. 3 is said to be the an eye witness to the last part and P.W. 6, 8, 11 and 13 are said to be present in the festival and the star witness is P.W. 9, the victim. P.W.2 is the other girl and a witness to the initial part of the incident and had escaped. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses has finally acquitted the respondents of the charges holding that the prosecution has been able to establish the factum of gang rape by the respondents upon the P.W. 9 and so also offence relating to kidnapping and assault.