STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SARAT CHANDRA ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.1992 passed by the C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypdre camp at Malkangiri in sessions Case No.96 of 1991 wherein he acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. only.

(2.) As per the prosecution case on 22.8.1991 at about 2.00 P.M. while the victim (P.W. 1) had been to attend the second call of nature, behind the veterinary office of Kudumulugumma, the accused-Respondent and co-accused Nalu Dora came near her and while accused Nalu caught hold of her, accused-Respondent ravished her against her will and without her consent. It was also alleged that accused Nalu, snatched away her gold ring. As depicted in the F.I.R., because of fear of casting of slur in her good name she was in double mind to lodge F.I.R. or not. But when the O.I.C. of Orkel I P.S. came to her village and some villagers asked, her to report the incident, she lodged the report on 24.8.1991. As the allegations contained in the report revealed a cognizable case for the offence under Sections 376/S94/ 34 I.P.C., the O.I.C. treated it as F.I.R., sent it to the P.S. for registration and took up investigation. In course of investigation the I.O. seized one umbrella and one 'Dhala' which the victim had carried to the spot, the wearing apparel of the accused-respondent and the alleged victim crash of Rs. 180/- and prepared seizure lists in respect thereof. He also seized one he-goat as it was revealed during investigation that the accused persons had purchased the same and another he-goat which had already been killed, by the sale proceeds of the gold ring. He got the victim medically examined and after completion of investigation finding a prima facie case against the accused persons submitted charge sheet against them for the offence under Sections 376/294/34 of I.P.C. The plea of the accused persons was complete denial of their involvement in the crime, in question.

(3.) In order to prove its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses, of whom P.W. 1 is the victim, P.Ws 2 to 4 and 6 are the witnesses before whom P.W.1 disclosed the alleged incident, P.W.5 is a seizure witness, P.Ws. 7 and 8 are doctors and P.Ws. 9 and 10 are boss. P.W.6 turned hostile to the prosecution. The accused persons preferred not to examine any witness. After assessing the evidence on record the trial Court did not believe that accused Sarat committed rape on the alleged victim, but found him guilty for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and Convicted him thereunder. Similarly, he Acquitted the co-accused for the offence under Section 392 of I.P.C., but convicted him for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. Both of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the State of Orissa filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 1981 of 1992 for leave to appeal. However, leave was granted to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused-respondent alone of the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and the criminal Misc. case was directed to be registered as Govt. Appeal. Accordingly, the aforesaid Govt. Appeal was registered.