SATYABADI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in S.T. No.129 of 2010 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Atagarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Athagarh vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months.

(2.) The prosecution allegation against the accused as embodied in the judgment of the learned trial court in nutshell is that on 23.08.2009 around 10 a.m. the victim, a 25 years old virgin while enroute home after taking bath in a village pond, the accused, a 55 years old man, in an erotic impulse caught hold of the victim finding her alone in a isoloated place, overpowered her, gagged her mouth and committed sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. The crestfallen victim with tears rolling over her cheek, in pain and agony disclosed that aweful incident before her parents and other inmates of the house. Having heard that episode from the victim, the father disclosed the fact before several villagers, rushed to the house of the accused to find out him and thereafter at 7 p.m. lodged a written report before the O.I.C. at Tigiria Police Station whereupon Tigiria P.S. Case No.78 of 2009 was registered, investigation taken up, the victim as well as the accused was subjected to medical examination and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 376 of IPC was laid against the accused. In accordance with law, the case was committed to the Court of Session where charge was framed against the accused under Section 376 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried whereafter prosecution examined thirteen witnesses including the doctor who had examined the victim and the accused as well as the Investigating Officer. Over and above, the prosecution had exhibited 11 documents to substantiate its case. The defence had examined one witness in his defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court held the accused guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) In assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned counsel for the accused submits that evidence of the victim is studded with infirmities in material particulars and when evidence of the Medical Officer does not show any injuries on the private parts of the victim and when the taletell circumstances belies the prosecution case, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable.