GOURA CHANDRA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of G.R. Case No. 69 of 1984, the petitioner along with Banamali and Mandu Jogendra was sent up for trial for offences punishable under sections 341, 354,323 read with section 34 I.P.C. In Trial Case No.75 of 1986 vide judgment dated 26.9.1989, the learned trial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Section 341, 354,323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 5.1. for one month each for offences under sections 323 and 341 I.P.C. and R.I. for two months for offence u/s. 354 I.P.C. Accused Banamali was found guilty u/ss. 341/354/34 I.P .C. but was given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.1,000/-. Accused Mandu Jogendra was found not guilty of the said offences and was acquitted. Against the conviction and sentences, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1989 before the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 2.3.1993 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the petitioner has filed this revision.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.2.1984, P.W. 3 Shakuntala and P.W 4 Indumati had gone to village Jajaposi to witness a marriage ceremony. After the marriage and the feast, they were resting in a Verandah. However, at the request of accused Banamali and Jogendra who are their co- villagers they agreed to return to their village in their company. While they were walking towards their village, the petitioner who had a cycle also joined them. At his request both P. Ws. 3 and 4 travelled as pillion riders. After travelling for some distance, the petitioner asked them to get down from the cycle and to cover the distance on foot. So P. W s. 3 and 4 started walking towards the village along with the petitioner. By this time, they were also joined by Banamali and Jogendra who had by then covered the distance on foot. At a little distance away from the village, the petitioner handed over the cycle to accused Jogendra and caught hold of P.W., 3-Shakuntala and accused Banamali caught hold of P.W. 4-Indumati. As P.W. 3 tried to raise an alarm, she was gagged with the help of a towel and in the struggle she received some abrasions on her lip and neck. However, both the girls resisted and managed to escape. They ran towards the village and took shelter in a house which belongs to Padmalochan (P.W. 6) to whom they narrated the incident. On being informed the father of P.W. 3 came and took them home. A report about the incident was lodged by the father of P.W. 3 at Baria police station the following day.

(3.) The plea of the defence was one of complete denial. It is stated that they were falsely implicated due to personal enmity. During trial, 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence was led on behalf of the accused. On appreciation of the material on record, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted Jogendra but convicted the petitioner and Banamali. In appeal, the conviction of the petitioner has been maintained and, accordingly, the matter has now come before this Court in revision.