STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PUMACHANDRA SADANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing the learned Additional Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent, who had figured as the accused person in the trial court being charged under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed rape on Srada Panigrahi (P.W.6) in his bi-cycle shop on April 25, 1980 at about 8 p.m. after dragging her from a place nearby where a cinema show was going on, I find, for the reasons to follow, that no interference is called for, as, on a careful examination of the evidence of the eleven witnesses examined for the prosecution and the four witnesses examined for the defence, the learned trial judge has found that the charge had not been established and the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse calling for interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal.

(2.) As has been submitted at the Bar, the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution, as deposed to by P.W.6 in the court, that she had been raped against her will and without her consent, as no injury had been found on her person or on the person of the respondent. The seizures of some clothes of P.W. 6 would not also further the case of the prosecution as no semen was detected in any of the articles. The Paijama (M.O. IV) said in have been seized from and belonging to the respondent did contain some semen, but it was found insufficient for serological test. This could not, therefore, be taken to be a circumstance against the respondent.

(3.) Absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed is not a sure indication as to whether rape had or had not been committed as in a case of helpless resignation, injuries might not have been caused on the aggressor or the aggressed owing to want of resistance. In the instant case, however, as would be found from the evidence of P.W. 6, it was not for the first time on April 26, 1980 that the respondent had sexual intercourse with her. On her own showing, the respondent had sexual intercourse with her for about six times prior to the date of occurrence. Her case that the respondent had made a false promise that he would marry her and that he had taken an oath in that regard before a Goddess had not found assurance from any other evidence and there was nothing to show that she had even informed this fact to her parent or anyone else.