THUNGURU TUDU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 27.07.2000 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, in S.T. Case No. 25 of 1998 convicting the Appellants under Sections 450/ 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code and one year for commission of offence under Section 450 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 07.10.1997 in the evening, informant Smt. Chita Tudu had been to the house of Thakur Tudu, one of her co -villagers, to bring money. After sometime, when she returned home, she found her daughter Balhi Tudu, the victim, absent. Her youngest son Gura Tudu disclosed before her that Balhi had been carried away. She searched for Balhi in the village but could not get any trace. After some time, Balhi returned home and disclosed before the informant that the accused persons, by putting cloth on her eyes and mouth, carried her away from home and committed rape on her. On 08.10.1997, there was a Punch in the village, but the matter could not be decided. On 09.10.1997, in the morning, again a meeting was held in the village. In that meeting, the accused persons confessed their guilt and they were fined by the villagers. That day, at about 5.00 P.M., the informant (P.W.l) went to Jashipur police station and orally reported the above facts before the O.L.C., who reduced her oral report to writing, registered a case and took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet under was submitted against the accused -appellants.

(3.) IN order to prove the case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. P.W.l is the informant, P.W.2 is the victim, P.W.3 is the younger sister of the victim, P.WA is the doctor who conducted ossification test on the victim to determine her age, P.W.5 is a co -villager who turned hostile to the prosecution, P.W.6 is a seizure witness, P.W.7 is the I.O., P.W.8 is the doctor who examined the accused persons and P.W. 9 is the doctor who examined the victim. The prosecution also proved seven documents and three M. Os. The defence did not choose to examine any witness. The Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, who tried the case, on consideration of the evidence and materials available on record, came to the finding that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. On such finding, he convicted the accused -appellants under Sections 450/376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as indicated above.