KAMALAKANTA PATTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stood charged under sections 376 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code). While serving as a salesman in the Kumudi Tribal Development Co-operative Society, the appellant, it was alleged, committed rape on Sara Chadei (P.W. 4) while her parents were away and she was all-alone in the house in village Kumudi in the district of Keonjhar during the night-of the lOth/lith August, 1979 after entering the house which had been closed from inside by putting a THESA, a piece of wood and after threatening her to be killed and gagging her mouth with a towel. This occurrence attracted the attention of the co-villagers including P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 who came near the house and after the victim opened the door, they learnt from her about the commission of rape an her by the appellant. In order to escape, the appellant scaled over the wall and fell down and as a result, sustained injuries on his person. He was detained by the villagers during the night and on the day following, he escaped on the pretext of going out to attend the call of nature. P.W. 1 went to Baunsapal and informed P.W. 5. the father of the victim girl, as to what had happened, On receiving information from him. P.W. 5 returned home. P.W. 4 informed him about the commission of rape on her by the appellant. Being accompanied by P.W. 1, P.W. 5 went to the police station and lodged the first information report (Ext. 31. Investigation followed and on its completion a charge-sheet was placed. After commitment, the appellant was prosecuted. This was the case of the prosecution presented at the trial.

(2.) The case of the appellant was that as he had been orders of transfer, he had gone out ,during the night to collect the dues of the society from some of the villagers including P.W. 5 as they had taken articles from the society on credit and when he enquired from P.W. 4 about her father and was told that he was absent from home, the villagers did not like his conversation with P.W. 4, assaulted him and falsely involved him in this case.

(3.) On a consideration of the evidence of seven witnesses examined for the prosecution and one witness for the defence, Mr. G. C. Ray, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepted the case of the prosecution and held the appellant to be guilty under both the charges and convicted him thereunder. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisoment for a period of five years under section 376 of the Code and no separate sentence was passed against him under section 457 of the Code.