KRUSHNA PRASAD RAJGURU MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, practising as an Advocate at Rayagada in the district of Koraput, assails the orders of Conviction recorded against him by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayagada, holding him guilty of the charge of kidnapping Rebati Palka with intent to have forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code'), for having wrongfully confined the kidnapped lady under Section 368 of the Code and for committing rape on her under Section 376 of the Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 376 of the Code and for a period of one year for each of the other two offences with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently which have been maintained by the Sessions Judge, Koraput, while stating incorrectly in the initial part of the judgment that the sentence of imprisonment passed under Section 376 of the Code was ore year. Mr. L. Rath, appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the findings, concurrent though they are, as unreasonable and illegal calling for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, while the learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that the findings by the trial and appellate Courts, being well -founded on the evidence, should not be interfered with.

(2.) THE case put forward by the prosecution was that during the night of June 11/12, 1981, the petitioner kidnapped Rebati Palka (P. W. 1) while she was sleeping outside her house in the summer, night, with her husband (P. W. 2) sleeping nearby, by forcibly dragging her and gagging her mouth and by threatening her on the point of a knife so that she would be forced to have sexual intercourse with him against her will and in that process, dragged her to his house, closed the door, confined her in the room and had sexual intercourse five times against her will and without her consent and ultimately in the early hours of June 12, 1981, she was rescued from the house of the petitioner by her husband (P. W. 2), her father (P. W. 3), P. W. 11 and two Constables (P. Ws. 5 and 10) who were on patrol duty during the night. The first information report was lodged by P. W. 2 at the police station and investigation followed and ultimately, the petitioner was prosecuted.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the revisional power of the High Court is as wide as the power of the Court of appeal, it is well -settled that normally, the jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In spite of the wide language of the provision relating to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is not expected to act as if it is hearing an appeal. {See AIR 1979 S. C. 663 : State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and Ors. ) This is not, however, to say that concurrent findings must be stamped as infallible because they are concurrent. If the High Court finds that unreasonable findings which cannot be sustained on the evidence have been recorded by the two courts, it would be doing justice by setting at naught such findings. Injustice must not be perpetrated because it has been done two times in a case, Two wrong decisions do not make a right one. No doubt, the burden of showing that concurrent decisions of two Courts are manifestly unjust lies on the person challenging them, but once that burden is successfully discharged, it is not only the right, but also, the duty of this Court to remedy the injustice. There should be no computerised system of the administration of justice.