STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GHANASHYAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No. 82 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 376 IPC read with section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the respondent was working as a Gram Sevak of Khajuriapada Block. The victim (P.W. 1) is a married lady aged about 25 to 26 years was residing with her family at village Dutipada with her husband, P.W.2 and others. The respondent sent a message through one Jagannath Behera (P.W.3) of village Dutipada to send his co -villager P.W. 2. On arrival of P.W.2, the respondent proposed him to bring his wife for health check up and necessary treatment as her health condition was deteriorating. Accordingly, P.W.2 came back and went to the respondent with his wife on 01.03.1994 at 10.30 am. It is further stated that on their arrival, respondent asked P.W. 2 to go to the block office to ascertain if it had been opened or not. It is alleged that the respondent then came out bolting the door from outside but later returned to the room from the backside. Then he called the victim to come to the inner room on the pretext of examination and when she went there, request came from the side of the respondent to lie down. Thereafter the allegation comes that on the pretext of the health check up of the victim, the respondent pressed her chest, mouth and raped her. Sometime thereafter P.W. 2 arrived and peeped through the window of the room, when he saw his wife P.W. 1 and the respondent there inside. Thereafter, when respondent come out of the room, P.W. 2 caught hold of him and then P.W. 1 -victim complained about the raped upon her. This created a furor in the area. So the F.I.R. was lodged at the Khajuriapada P.S. and that necessitated the registration of the case against the respondent for the above offences and the investigation commenced. In course of investigation, victim and other witnesses were examined; her wearing apparels were seized and sent for chemical examination. Victim was also medically examined. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet being placed, the respondent faced the trial.

(3.) IN the trial respondent took the plea of denial and false implication. When the prosecution examined seven witnesses, the defence has examined none. As already stated P.W. 1 is the victim, when P.W. 2 is her husband. A villager through whom the respondent had sent message to P.W. 2 has come to the dock as P.W. 3. The Block Development Officer has also been examined as P.W. 4 whereas the doctors examining the victim and the respondent are P.W. 5 and 6 respectively and at last the Investigating Officer has come to the dock as P.W.7. Prosecution has also proved the F.I.R. Ext. 1, the medical reports, chemical examination report and other documents.