CHHOTU @ NABARANG SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal calls in question the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2008 passed in S.T. No.88/29 of 2005 by the learned Addl. C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Rourkela holding the appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 376(2)(g), 458 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of 3 months under Sec. 376(2)(g) of IPC, R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of 3 months under Sec. 458 of Penal Code and R.I. for six months under Sec. 506 of IPC.

(2.) In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 26/27.09.2004, the appellant along with one Pagal Hati entered into the house of one Bijli Kindo (P.W.1) and at the knife point they committed rape on the helpless and hopeless victim (P.W.13) who was staying in that house during that period. One Rintu thereafter disclosed to her that there is danger to her life as he had the information that some miscreants will enter into her house. Apprehending danger, the victim as such remained in the house of her neighbour in that night. On the next day, i.e., on 30.09.2004 in the noon after the victim returned from her college, one Rintu met her who assured her to help and on such false pretext took the victim with him to his brother's house in village- Barabansa where Rintu committed rape on her but disclosed the name of the appellant and his associate - Pagala Hati to have committed rape on her in the house of Bijli Kindo. The aforesaid matter was reported to the police on 01.10.2004, on receipt of which case was registered vide Bandamunda P.S. Case No.84 of 2004, police apprehended the culprits including the appellant, conducted investigation, seized incriminating materials, sent the victim and her rapist for medical examination, and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the appellant and two others.

(3.) Relying on the materials placed by the prosecution, the trial court framed charge under Sections 376(2)(g) and 458 of Penal Code against the appellant and Pagala Hati and separately charged Rinku @ Rintu Singh under Sec. 376(2)(a) of IPC. They having pleaded not guilty to the charge, faced trial. Prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and also exhibited 11 documents in order to bring home the charge against the appellant and two others. In their defence, they had examined themselves as defence witnesses. On conclusion of trial, placing reliance on the evidence of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, the trial court returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated earlier. The appellant has only challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this appeal.