HATI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are taken up together since both are directed against the judgment dated 30.01.1992 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No. 303/67 of 1989, convicting Hati @ Chintamani Mohanta (Appellant in CRA 69/1992) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months more and convicting Jairam Mohanta (appellant in CRA 74/1992) u/s. 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years.

(2.) The prosecution story, as unfurled, is that on 11.10.1988 at about 2.30 p.m., when the parents of the victim were absent from the house and the victim alone was combing her hair, both the accused persons entered inside her house, gagged her mouth by means of a towel and dragged her to inside a room. There the accused Hati @ Cintamani forcibly raped the victim and thereafter when the accused Jairam was trying to rape her, two females of the village came inside the house and both the accused persons fled away. In the evening, the victim informed her mother, after she came back home, who in turn informed her husband in the night. The father of the victim lodged a written report on the next day at Kaliapani Outpost. Pursuant to the report, the ASI of police in charge of the Outpost took up the investigation sending the FIR to Tamka Police Station for formal registration of the case. In course of the investigation the informant, the victim and the other witnesses were examined, the wearing apparels of the victim and the accused Hati were seized and sent for chemical examination, both the accused persons were arrested and forwarded to the court and the victim was medically examined, once at S.D. Hospital Jajpur for the injuries and again at SCB Medical College, Cuttack for determining her age. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 448/376 IPC against the accused Hati @ Chintamani and under Sections 448/354 of the IPC against the accused Jairam.

(3.) Both the accused persons pleading not guilty to the charges faced their trial with a further plea that due to certain dispute between them and the brother of the victim who was fined in the village meeting, they have been falsely implicated in the case.