LAWS(ORI)-2007-4-33

STATE OF ORISSA Vs. TUDUJA DIGAL

Decided On April 20, 2007
STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
V/S
Tuduja Digal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government Appeal has been filed against the Judgment/ Order dated 20th March, 1993 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No. 57 of 1992 acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that on 21.1.1992 at about 4 PM Chhanaki Digal had gone to Dharanipada jungle near village Dimiriguda to collect twigs and Siali leaves. While she was engaged in collecting twigs and siali leaves, the Appellant arrived there, forcibly laid Chhanki down on the ground and committed rape on her. The Appellant threatened the victim to take away her life and the life of her husband if she would disclose the incident to anybody. Out of fear, the victim did not disclose the incident to any outsider but intimated the said fact to her husband. After hearing the incident from the victim, her husband wanted to enquire the said fact from the Appellant, but his elder brother prevented him to do so out of fear as the family members of the Appellant were more in number compared to the victim's family. Therefore, he waited till arrival of his younger brother who had gone to a relation's house. After his arrival, complaint was lodged with the Shastriji Jubak Sangha which convened a meeting but as the Appellant did not obey the decision of the Jubak Sangha, the FIR was lodged before the Officer -in -charge of Phiringia Police station 30.1.1992. Police after investigation submitted charges -sheet against the accused. - -

(3.) TO bring home the ctiarge to the Appellant, prosecution examined as many as ten witness out of whom P.W. 1 is the victim herself, P.W. 2 is the Secretary of the Jubak Sangh who scribed the FIR, P.W. 3 is the informant, P.W. 4 is the doctor who examined the victim,, P.W. 7 is the doctor who examined the vaginal swab of the victim, P.W.8 is the Radiologist, PS. 9 is the doctor who examined the Appellant, P.W.5 is a seizure witness who has been declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W. 6 is the brother of the informant. The I.O. has been examined as P.W. 10. No witness was examined by the Appellant in his defence.