STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SURENDRA PRADHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska in S.C. Case No. 8 of 1995 acquitting the respondents of the charge under section 450/376, I.P.C. The complainant has also filed an appeal questioning the said order of acquittal.

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal run as under. On 14.10.1993 night, the complainant was sleeping in her house waiting for her children for their return after attending a feast. It is around 10. p.m. the accused finding the complainant alone in her house made an entry. It is alleged that the accused then slept over the complainant. So, she wake up and raised hulla. When the accused closed her mouth using his palm and told her not to raise shout any more. Thereafter the accused gagged her by means of a saree, squeezed her breast and did sexual intercourse against her will. At that point of time P.W. 2 arrived at the front verandah of the complainant ana she focused her torch light. Seeing this, accused got up and made good his escape through the back door.

(3.) During trial the prosecution examined in total eight witnesses. Besides the same, the plain paper F.I.R. Ext. 1, medical examination report and seizure list have been admitted in evidence P.W. 1 is the complainant when P.W. 2 is the lady who is said to have arrived at the place of occurrence. The medical experts are P.Ws. 4 and 7, P.W. 5 is a co-villager and P.W. 6 is the son of uncle-in-law of the complainant. The investigating officer has come to the dock at last as P.W. 8. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial and false implication in view of village rivalry and prior litigation.