STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JHADU LUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Sessions Case No. 02/39 of 1993, acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 379 of IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case is that on 9-10-1992 during noon hours, the victim lady P.W.1 along with her husband had been to a place, locally known as "Kantarbadi Chanchara" inside the jungle at a distance of 20 Kms. from Muniguda police station. They had gone there to earn their livelihood by way of their engagement in breaking the stones. After their arrival, the husband of the victim P.W.2, left for Muniguda Bazar in a truck for purchasing household articles. So, the victim-P.W.1 was returning alone to her village, Kumudaballi. Around 1.00 p.m. on her way back home she saw the respondent who was sitting underneath a Mahula tree. It is stated that no sooner did the victim cross the place, where the respondent was sitting, she was followed by the respondent who asked her to stand for a while and listen to him. When the victim P.W.1 stood for a moment, accepting the request, it is stated that the respondent immediately tied a sum of ' 30/- and a perfumed oil bottle in her saree. The victim then raised protest, removed and threw those. It is stated that the respondent in spite of victim's repeated request, did not stop there and forcibly took her to nearby place inside the jungle, made her lie on the ground, removed her saree and made her naked. Thereafter getting himself undressed, he went for penetrative sexual assault upon the victim. The respondent then threatened the victim not to raise any hullah or else to face dire consequences. So the victim maintained silence. After the incident, the victim went to the nearby rivulet, washed herself and returned to the village where she narrated the incident first to her mother-in-law who suggested to wait till the return of her husband. Thereafter, F.I.R. being lodged at the Police Station to the above effect, necessary case has been registered and investigation triggered.

(3.) The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the respondent has altogether examined seven witnesses whereas respondent himself has come to the dock in his defence. More importantly from the side of the prosecution, the F.I.R. Ext. 4, medical reports Exts. 1 and 2 as also seizure list etc. have been proved.