HARIHAR BEHERA Vs. MANTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 16/5/2006 passed in S.T. No. 91/131 of 2000 by the learned C.J.M.-cumAssistant Sessions Judge, Khurda Camp at Bhubaneswar, acquitting the present opposite party no.1 from the charge under Sec. 376 of IPC. PROSECUTION CASE

(2.) The prosecution allegation in brief is that, on 17/6/1997 at about 8.00 P.M., on the request of one Sanatan Sahoo-P.W.7 to the wife of the petitioner, to send her daughter (victim girl) to assist them in cooking, the victim went to the house of Sanatan Sahoo and found that there was no Kerosene oil in the stove. Thereafter Sanatan went outside to bring Kerosene. Taking advantage of his absence, the present opposite party no.1 entered inside the house of Sanatan Sahoo, called the victim, put napkin on her mouth and committed rape on her in spite of her protest. After the accused went away, the victim came to her house narrated the incident before her mother. Her mother informed Sanatan Sahoo, who placed the matter before the village gentry and the matter was settled by the village gentry where the opposite party no.1 by putting garland on the victim, before the village deity, accepted her as his wife. After five days, the opposite party no.1 and his parents picked up quarrel with the victim, kicked her, dragged her out and locked the house from outside and went away. Finding no other alternative, the victim returned to her house and the matter was orally reported before the OIC, Chandaka Police Station. On 1/7/1997, the accused came in the night and attempted to kill the victim by a knife and left after threatening her. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, who forwarded the same to the OIC, Chandaka Police Station, case was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Ss. 376/511 of IPC was submitted against the opposite party. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar and charge was framed against him for commission of offence under Sec. 376 of IPC. DEFENCE PLEA

(3.) The defence plea was one of complete denial of the prosecution case and of false implication as the accused demanded money which was due to him from the informant. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS