DEBADAS DIARI Vs. SATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in both the appeals, call in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No. 127/95 of 2008. The trial court vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellants guilty of charge under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C.") and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. each of them to undergo R.I. for six months more and further held the appellant, namely, Debadas Diari in CRLA No. 487 of 2009 guilty of charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-i.d. to undergo R.I. for one year more. The prosecution placed before the trial court a case that when the victim (P.W.4) was going to Rengalipali weekly market on her way she was abducted by the appellants in a jeep at the point of knife to village Jhariguda where she was kept in confinement in a house. There the appellant-Debadas Diari committed sexual intercourse on her forcibly several times. A week thereafter when her father (P.W.3) knowing about her confinement, came there along with other villagers and requested the appellant Debadas Diari to leave the victim, but the appellants did not pay any heed to their request and driven them out without allowing them to meet the victim. The appellant Debadas Diari thereafter took the victim to another village where he kept her in the night and in the next morning left the victim at village Bimala which is nearer to the village of the victim. The victim then went to her home and narrated the entire incident before her father which was reported to the police, but as the police did not take any action, a complaint was made before the learned S.D.J.M., Dharamgarh which was registered as I.C.C. No. 41 of 2006. Learned S.D.J.M., Dharamgarh thereafter recording the initial statement of the complainant-victim and also examining other witnesses took cognizance of commission of offences under Sections 366/376/34 of the I.P.C. and committed the case to the court of Session to face their trial.

(2.) Relying on the materials placed, the trial court framed charges as stated earlier against the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty of the charges. It appears that during the trial, prosecution examined four witnesses including the complainant-victim and her father (P.W.3) and two other independent witnesses to bring home the charges. The appellants had taken the plea of denial and false implication, but adduced no evidence in support of their plea.

(3.) On conclusion of the trial, the trial court relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, more particularly the victim, held the appellants guilty and returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as stated earlier.