STATE OF ORISSA Vs. G. NAGESWAR CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore, in S.C. No. 112 of 1994 acquitting the respondent nos. 1 and 2 of the charge under sections 376 (2)(g) IPC and section 3 (2)(v) of the SC & ST (P&A) Act as well as 304-A IPC and respondent No. 3 of the charge under section 376 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 22.10.1993 at about 5 P.M. Sapadi Sukru and Kadri Jaya of Bailipadu and Majhi Mangala of Ita Valasa came to Gunjulupadu and informed that the victim had been raped by the respondent No. 3 under a Sunari tree at Masanimeta. He also told that being asked he was chased and assaulted. Hearing about the incident Majhi Sunder Rao, Kadri Kandara, Kandri Gadava, Sapadi Sukra and others proceeded to Masanimeta, where they found respondent No. 3 pulling the hand of the victim. The victim was lying unconscious and therefore was brought to the village. It is stated that after recovery, she disclosed that on 21.10.1993 in the after-noon she with Dholia Lachu and Budia Sinayya had been to the liquor shop of respondent No. 1 to sell fowl and Sahukar arrived there little later and give them liquor to drink. Budia Sinayya being drunk fell down there and Dholia Lachu went to the village. The victim when got heavily intoxicated, the respondent No. 1 forcibly took her into the hut and raped her and then respondent No. 2 and accused-Bhima came there. In spite of protest, Bhima also raped her. In view of that, she again lost her sense. Regaining her sense, she found herself lying under a tree and finding respondent No. 3 there asked for water. But that respondent No. 3 raped her there whereafter some boys arrived before whom she complained severe pain all over her body and expressed that she would not survive. Victim's husband Budia Adu, and Budia Gangulu came to the village and remained with the victim. On 23.10.1993 morning Sarpanch Kataki Chinna was informed and he came to Gunjulupadu and asked everything to the victim. It is stated that the victim divulged before him about the roles of the respondents in committing rape upon her. One Majhi Sundar Rao came to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R.

(3.) Receiving the FIR, Police registered the necessary case against the respondents and took up investigation. On 24.10.1993 death of the victim was reported. So inquest was held over the dead body of the victim followed by the preparation of the inquest report and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Seizure of incriminating materials were also made followed by preparation of seizure list. The wearing apparels of the respondents and the broken pieces of bangles of the victim were also seized and finally seized incriminating articles were placed to examination by the expert. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet being laid, cognizance of the offence was taken. And upon commitment of the case, the respondents faced the trial. Prosecution in the trial examining thirteen witnesses has also proved the documents such as postmortem examination report, inquest report, seizure list and report of the chemical examiner etc. In defence, respondents took the plea of denial and in support of the same they have examined two witnesses.