THE STATE Vs. BATAKRISHNA MAHANTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Batakrishna Mahanto was tried under Section 376, Indian Penal Code for committing rape on Damani Dei (p.w. 1) and has been acquitted. Prosecution case is that she in the company of Puna Dei (p.w. 1) and Malli Dei (p.w. 3) were returning from the jungle after collecting Mahua flowers on 14 -3 -1963 at about noon. All of a sudden the accused caught hold of P.W. 1 and committed sexual intercourse with her at the paddy field of one Chotrai Mahanto. The girls shouted. Chilla Naik (p.w. 4) and Baikuntha Naik (p.w. 5) were returning with Bhars of fire wood from the forest. On seeing them, the accused fled away. He was, however, pursued and caught hold of by p.ws. 4 and 5. Gulu Mahanto (p.w. 7) was taking his bath and found the accused being caught hold of by p.ws. 4 and 5. On the direction of the headman of the village the accused was released. Subsequently a Punchayati was held and by the Punchanama (Ext. 1) dated 14 -3 -1963 matters were settled. On 16 -3 -1963 the accused lodged a Station Diary Entry (Ext. 7) making certain complaints of assault against P.W. 7 and others. On 18 -3 -1963, a Station Diary Entry (Ext. 4) was lodged for the prosecution with allegation of rape.

(2.) THE defence is one of complete denial. The accused on the other hand pleads that on 14 -3 -1963 he had been to the tank to take his bath. At that time P.W. 5 and others assaulted him and he lodged the Station Diary Entry (Ext. 7) on 16 -3 -1963, a Station Diary Entry (Ext. 4) is a counter -blast to it and a false case has been lodged.

(3.) SUFFICIENT corroboration of the statement of P.W. 1 is also available. P.ws. 2 and 3, who are 12 and 11 years old respectively, were in the company of P.W. 1. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge remarks that both P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were fairly intelligent to understand the affairs of life. There is no doubt that there is some discrepancy in the evidence of p.ws. 2 and 3. For instance, at one stage they had stated that when the accused committed rape on P.W. 1, P.W. 2 ran to call P.W. 5, while in the Sessions Court they deposed that both of them were standing at a distance of 2 to 3 feet so that they could see the whole act. My attention was also drawn to the deposition of P.W. 3 stating than the accused simply sat on the body of Damani for some time and then went away. They are rustic village girls and are likely to commit some discrepant statements regarding the occurrence which happened long before. But scrutinizing their evidence carefully, I am satisfied that these two young girls are deposing absolute truth when they say that the accused all of a sudden dragged P.W. 1, threw her on the ground, took out her cloths and committed rape despite their protest and shouts. It is true that P.W. 5 is the brother of P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 is the aunt of p.ws. 2 and 5. But in a case of this nature, where the entire family reputation is at stake, it is difficult to imagine that p.ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 conspired together to bring calumny on themselves by fictitiously coining a story that the accused committed rape on P.W. 1 in broad day light at 12 noon.