GAYA ROUT Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant stands convicted under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for six years.

(2.) THE prosecution case, is short, is that P.W. 4, a girl of 11 -12 years old, was working in the house of the accused as a maid servant. The girl wanted to go to see her father, who was staying underneath a tree near the old station Bazar. On 8 -7 -1972 at about 8 p.m. the accused took the girl towards the railway lines at Bhubaneswar on the plea of taking her to father, and when they were passing near the railway lines, the accused forced P.W. 4 to lie down on the ground and there he committed rape on her. After committing rape, the accused brought back the girl to his house and threatened her not to divulge anything about that matter to anybody. On the next day at about 4 p.m. the victim girl anyhow managed to go away from the house of the accused and she met P.W. 3, the wife of P.W. 2, at a place near the old Station Bazar where P.W. 1. the father of P.W. 4, was staying. P.w. 1 of course was not present there at that time. Then P.W. 4 informed P.W. 3 that the accused committed rape on her on the previous evening. Within a short time thereafter the accused came to that place and forcibly took away P.W. 4 again to his house. At about 6 p.m. P.W. 1 came to his dwelling place near the Station Bazar, and then he learnt from, P.W.2 that P.W. 4 had been raped by the accused on the previous evening. On receiving that information p. w 1 went to the Capital Police -station and lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 13. P.w. 11, the then Sub -Inspector of Police in the Capital Police -station, after recording the F.I.R. (Ext. 13) on the statement made by P.W. 11. directed P.W. 10, another Sub - Inspector of Police, to take up investigation of the case. P.w. 10 went to the house of the accused near Laxmisagar and therefrom brought the girl P.W. 4. He also brought a cloth M.O.I. produced by the wife of the accused. The victim girl was later sent to the Capital Hospital for her examination where she was examined by P.W. 9, the Lady Doctor. The accused was arrested on 12 -7 -l972 by P.W. 10. After investigation and commitment proceeding the accused was charged in the trial Court for an offence under Section 976. Indian Penal Code, of which he stands convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) THERE are various unsatisfactory, unconvincing and improbable features in the prosecution evidence, especially on the important aspects of the case, due to which the prosecution case does not inspire confidence.