STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SHYAMDAS TUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the order of. acquittal of the respondent recorded by learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in ST Case No. 7/2 of 1989.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that on 16.09.1988 when the victim girl (P. W. 1) along with her sisters, grand -mother and neighbours was watching Biswakarma Puja at Keonjhar, the respondent asked her to accompany him to village Saras, which is situated at 3 K.Ms. away from Keonjhar town. The victim girl agreed to the proposal and started her journey to village -Saras with the respondent on his bicycle. On the way, the respondent forcibly took the victim girl to the school building situated at the outskirt of village Saras and committed sexual intercourse with her twice against her will. Hearing the cry of the victim girl, some villagers came to the school and saw the respondent fleeing away from the spot on a bicycle. The victim girl came to her house, narrated the incident to her family members and then lodged an F.I.R in the Town Police Station, Keonjhar at about 11.00 P.M. Basing on the report, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was submitted under Section 376, I.P.C. against the respondent. The respondent took a plea of complete denial and false implication. During trial of the case, 12 witnesses were examined, 14 documents were exhibited and seven material objects were produced by the prosecution. The respondent -accused examined one defence witness only. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the alleged sexual intercourse by the respondent was with the consent of the victim girl, who was 17 1/2 years old. He accordingly, acquitted the respondent of the charge. The said order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) THERE is not much dispute about the sequence of events. It is clearly available in the F.I.R., statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 and that of the respondent given before the Court under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that the respondent requested the victim girl to accompany him to village Saras and the victim girl came with him. Though the respondent denied to have sexual intercourse with the victim girl, yet the evidence of victim girl and that of post -occurrence witnesses (P.Ws. 3, 4, 8, 9) suggest that the respondent and the victim girl had sexual intercourse inside the school building. The real controversial aspect of the case is whether the alleged sexual intercourse between the respondent and the victim girl in the school building was with consent of the victim girl and whether the victim girl was a major by the date of occurrence.