RAJA @ DOLAGOBINDA DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was convicted under Section 376 (1), I.P.C. (Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013) and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand), in default, to suffer further period of R.I. for three months. Hence this Appeal.

(2.) The occurrence happened in the wee hours of the morning, at about 4.00 A.M. on 20.04.2013. F.I.R. was lodged in Mahila P.S., Bhubaneswar on 26.04.2013. Investigation was taken up and on 26.04.2013 itself the Appellant was arrested. The victim's mother (P.W.9) is the informant in this case. The F.I.R. was scribed by her son-in-law Siba Charan Das (P.W.2).

(3.) The gist of the prosecution case, as found from the record, is as follows :- The victim (P.W.1), who is major, woke up early at about 4.00 A.M. on 20.04.2013 and went outside to urinate. At that time, her mother (P.W.9) had already woken up and she had already switched on the electric light illuminating the house. The victim (P.W.1) did not return home for about 10-20 minutes. The victim's mother (P.W.9) searched for her and also informed about the fact of victim's missing, to her husband (P.W.4) immediately. P.W.4 and P.W.9 (both the parents) along with their youngest son and youngest daughter (both not examined) searched for the victim in the nearby places, but in vain. The victim's father (P.W.4) thereafter gave information about missing of the victim to his son- in-law Siba Charan Das (P.W.2), who has married his (P.W.4's) middle daughter Banita (P.W.3). Both P.Ws.2 and 3 then reached in the house of the victim immediately. All of them started searching for the victim at different places. When they were going towards Mayfair Hotel, Bhubaneswar, they found the Appellant (accused) coming out of a sub-lane, and the Appellant ran away seeing all of them. After a while, they saw the victim (P.W.1) coming from the same sub-lane. On being confronted, the victim (P.W.1) said that the Appellant called her to show a material and then forcibly brought her to a latrine at a distance of about ten minutes walk from their house, and inside the latrine the Appellant asked her to remove her panty. She refused. Then the Appellant forcibly removed her panty, squeezed her breasts and inserted his penis into her anus repeatedly. The Appellant also threatened her to keep quiet and further threatened her not to disclose the matter before anybody, or else he would kill her. After hearing about the incident, all the family members of the victim, i.e. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 while were returning to their house, they found the mother of the Appellant plucking flowers in front of her house. They all complained before her (mother of the Appellant) about the indecent act of the Appellant. She (mother of the Appellant) called them inside her house and confronted the matter to the Appellant (her son). The Appellant denied to have committed any such act. Thereafter the local gentries came to know about the incident, out of whom P.Ws.5, 6, 8 and 10 are important. They told the victim's family not to report the matter to the Police, as they are taking up the matter for an amicable settlement. Thereafter, in the house of the Appellant, a meeting was held; the Appellant (accused) initially refused about any such incident, but subsequently he admitted his guilt. The matter was reduced into writing in presence of the Appellant and all the gentries present in the meeting. Days passed by, but no action was taken by the local gentries. P.W.4 (father of the victim) then went and met one of the local gentries, with whom the written 'Ekrarnama' was there; he (the gentleman) said that, they cannot do anything in the matter and he (P.W.4) should report the matter to the Police. However, giving some other reasons regarding the health condition of the victim, the delay of lodging the F.I.R. on 26.04.2013 has been explained.