GOURANGA CHARAN SETHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the criminal revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 18. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul in criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1995/219 of 1997. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned order, the appellate Court has convicted the petitioner Gouranga under section 354 IPC and petitioner Ganeswar under Section 354/109 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo R. I. for one month by modifying the judgment and order dated 1. 2. 1995 passed by the learned C. J. M-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Angul in S. T. Case no. 23 of 1993/trial No. 19 of 1994 convicting gouranga under Sections 376/511 IPC and Ganeswar under Sections 376/511/109 ipc and sentencing each of them to undergo r. I. for three years and six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo further R. I. for one month.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that PW7 lodged information stating therein that on 31. 10. 1992 at night while his minor daughter ranjita was returning home from the quarters of PW3 after attending Ekoisa celebration, both the petitioners, who were then working as Constables in the P. T. C. , angul, called her to take Guava. When she refused, they forcibly dragged her, removed her undergarments and ravished her. Final form having been submitted, the petitioners were tried being charged under Sections 376/109 IPC.

(3.) THE plea of the petitioners was of complete denial. Specific plea of petitioner ganeswar was that the informant had asked him to depose falsely against accused gouranga saying that Gouranga raped his younger daughter, but when he refused to oblige him, he has implicated him falsely in this case. Similarly, Gouranga has pleaded that the wife and the elder daughter of the informant were going to learn stitching along with his wife. Subsequently, however, there was a quarrel between him and the informant, who, out of grudge, has foisted this case against him.