LADU KISHORE PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Koraput -Jeypore in S.C. No.14/86 and 22/89/S.C. No.37/86 and 120/87 in convicting the appellant under Sections 376/323/506 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence under Section 376 IPC and one year on each count under Sections 323/506 IPC, the sentence to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Trusharani Mistri is the married wife of Amal Mistri residing at village MV -69 under Kaliamela Police Station in the district of Koraput. On 22.11.1985 evening Trusharani along with her father -in -law, her husbands younger brother Sumala, her husbands elder brother Parimal and her husbands elder brothers wives Susma and Anjali had gone to see the Jatra. At about 3.30 A.M. they were returning to their village via Kaliamela. Trusharani, the prosecutrix, and Sumal were going ahead and others were at a little behind. When Trusharani and Sumal reached the tea stall at Kalimela, an unknown person gave a push to Trusharani and stood near accused Ladu Kishore Pradhan, the Chairman of Kaliamela Panchayat Samiti. When Sumal went and protested, Ladu Kishore Pradhan assaulted him as well as the complainant Trusharani. Ladu Kishore Pradhan, the present appellant gave pushes to Sumal and dragged Trusharani -P.W. 1 towards the house of one Jain Marwadi, kept herein one room and Sumal in another room.When the father -in -law and others of the complainant protested, accused -appellant drove them out. He entered inside the room there the complainant was confined and attached her and thereafter committed sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix -P.W.1 narrated the incident before Sumal and both of them narrated the incident before her husband. In the morning, her husband complained before the Co -accused Laxmi Kanta Biswas, the President of village of Palli Mangal Samiti who consoled them. Thereafter, accused -Ladu Kishore Pradhan and the then O.I.C. of Venkatapalam Police Station came and threatened the complainant and the prosecutrix. On Monday while the complainant and her husband were going to Kalemala Police Station for lodging the report, both the accused persons came and threatened them with dire consequences; so they went back. On Tuesday, when both of them had gone to the hospital for medical examination, the accused persons came to the hospital and asked them to go away, or else face dire consequences. So, out of fear, they returned to their village. Some days thereafter, the complainant prosecutrix) and her husband could manage to go to Koraput and submitted a written report before the Collector, who advised them to complain before the Chairman, Legal Aid and Advice Committee, Malkangiri. The complainant submitted an application before the Chairman of the Legal Aid and Advice Committee, Malkangiri and on 21.1.1986 lodged a complaint before the S.D.J.M., Malkangiri registered as I.C.C. No.8 of 1986, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/342/354/506/376/34 I.P.C. Thereafter, the case was turned to S.C.No.14 of 1986. The Chairman, Legal Aid and Advice Committee, on receipt of a report on 17.1.1986, forwarded the same to the O.I.C., Venkatapalam, Police Station, which was registered at the Police Station on 27.1.1986 on the basis of which Venkatpalam P.S. Case No.7 of 1986 (G.R. Case No.41 of 1986) was registered under Sections 323/506/376 IPC and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. On being committed to the Court of session, the case was numbered as S.C. No.22 of 1989. As both the complaint case and the G.R. case arose out of the same occurrence, both the Sessions Case Nos. 14/86 and 22/89 were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. P.s.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is her brother -in -law, who is a witness to the occurrence, P.W.6 is the husband of the victim, P.Ws. 3 and 4 are other co -villagers who saw a part of the occurrence, P.W.5 is a seizure witness and P.Ws.7 and 8 are the investigating officers. Prosecution also proved seven documents marked Exts. 1 to 7.