RAMACHANDRA GIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARISING out of the same judgment and order, these two appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.

(2.) I would state briefly the case of the prosecution presented at the trial. Hailing from the neighbouring district of Mayurbhanj, Anita Mohapatra, (P. W. 6) joined as an Auxiliary Nurse -cum -Midwife at Palaspanga in the district of Keonjhar en September 8, i982. An unmarried girl then, she came with her father to Palaspanga and as the quarters meant for her occupation was not habitable, stayed for a day with her father in the quarters of Banamali Misra (P. W. 1), the Agricultural Extension Officer stationed at the same place, in front of her quarters intervened by a road, whereafter she occupied her quarters, After a few days, the father of P. W. 6 want away leaving P. W. 6 alone in the quarters. Doting some nights, stones and brickbates were thrown at her quarters and doors and shutters were knocked for which on the advice of P' W. 1, who had been requested by her father to look after her and of the doctor (P. W. 7) of the Padmapur Hospital, with whom she was serving, she went and brought her mother (P. W. 10) to remain with her. P. Ws. 1 and 6 were on visiting terms and at times, P. W. 6 used to take food with P. W. 1. On October 11, 1982, of the invitation of P. W. 1, P. W. 6 left her quarters leaving her mother and went to the quarters of P. W. 1 with a torchlight with her as it was a dark night for having 'dinner with him. After finishing her dinner and having chitchat for some time with P. W. I, P. W. 6 was returning home being accompanied by P. W. 1 who was going ahead 1 when the appellant Petra alias Madhab Karua came running and dealt a push to P. W, 1 as a result of which he fell down. P. W. 6 ran away towards her quarters calling out her mother, but before she could reach, she was caught by the other four appellants and a piece of cloth was thrown on her face and her mouth was gagged by hand. The torchlight she had was snatched away and when she struggled, she was bodily lifted and carried away by these four persons being joined by the appellant Madhab. With the flashing of the torchlight which P. W. 1 had, he had been able to identify the appellants during the night of occurrence. P. W. 6 was carried away by the time appellants to the unoccupied Stockman Centre of the Veterinary Department and on its verandah, was raped by all the appellants one after the other and while one was ravishing her, the others had caught hold of her hands and legs, She lost her senses and when she regained, asked for some water. She was taken to a tank and given some water and when she was near the tank, she was again raped by the appellants other than the appellant Surendra and on her protest, the ' appellant Madhab assaulted her by giving blows by means of a stone oil her waist. P. W. 6 had then recognised and identified the appellants by the light of the moon and by the torchlight being focused by them. An attempt was made by the culprits to again rape her, but she fell flat at their feet and requested to leave her after making a promise not to disclose the incident before anybody as desired by the culprits. On her request, she was taken by the appellants Ramachandra and Madhab and left under a mango tree at some distance from her quarters. In the meantime, P. W. 1, being accompanied by P. W. 11, then working as the Watchman in the office of P. W. I and staying with him and his (P. W. 11's) servant Kalakar Kara (not examined) and Majura Karua (not examined), who had been sleeping in his quarters in that night, had unsuccessfully searched for P W. 6. On returning to her quarters, P. W. 6 narrated the incident to her mother and P. W. 1. Next day, P. W. 6 went to the doctor (P. W. 7) of the Padmapur Hospital and reported to him about the incident. P. W. 7 reported about the occurrence to the police authorities as per Fx. 6, examined the person of P. W. 6 partially and sent her to the Lady Doctor (P. W. 8) for examination of her private parts. The appellants were arrested and examined by the doctor (P. W. 9) who noticed injuries on their persons. The saree (M. O. I), saya (M. O. II) and blouse (M. O. III) belonging to P. W. 6 which had been worn by her at the time of the occurrence had been seized on production by her in the course of investigation and sent for chemical examination. M. Os. I and II contained human blood and semen. Four Lungis (M. Os. IV to VII) seized from the possession of four of the appellants were sent for chemical examination, but no incriminating substance was found. On the completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was placed and the appellants were prosecuted.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence of the thirteen witnesses examined for the prosecution and the evidence of the two witnesses examined for the defence, the trial Court has accepted the case of the prosecution against the appellants and has rejected the plea of the defence. Each of the appellants has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code') and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten year. Each of them, has been convicted under Section 341 of the Code for wrongfully restraining P. W. 6 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Each of them has also been convicted under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Code for theft of the torchlight in the possession of P. W. 6 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellant Madhab has been convicted under Section 323 of the Code for voluntarily causing hurt to P. Ws. 1 and 6 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. A direction has been given that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.