STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SUKADEV PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in respect of the charge under S.376 of the I.P.C. while convicting the accused respondent under S.354 of the I.P.C. The respondent, it was alleged, forcibly committed rape on the victim girl (P.W. 6), then aged about nine years, on Sept. 5, 1980, while she was watching the paddy field, by going there, making her naked and then forcibly penetrating his Penn inside her vagina and committing sexual intercourse against her will. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court held that the charge of rape had not been established, but the respondent could be held guilty for outraging the modesty of P.W. 6.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. In an appeal against acquittal, it is to be seen as to whether the finding recorded by the trial court is reasonably possible. Even if another view can be taken, no interference is called for.

(3.) The facts of the prosecution case, the plea of the defence and the prosecution evidence have been set out in the judgment of the trial court. The delay in lodging the first information report which had been done four days after the occurrence had satisfactorily been explained, as held by the trial court. Taking into consideration the improbabilities in the story presented by P.W. 6 in her evidence, the fact that the sole witness to the occurrence (P.W. 7), who was said to be nearby, did not support the evidence of P.W. 6 for which she was put leading questions under S.154 of the Evidence Act and the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5) who had noticed no injury on the person of the victim or on the person of the respondent, the trial court held that the charge of rape had not been established.