LAWS(ORI)-2017-9-95

SANKIRTAN KHADIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On September 16, 2017
Sankirtan Khadia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Raghu Sika in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2012 and the appellant Sankirtan Khadia in Jail Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2012 faced trial in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum- Asst. Sessions Judge, Bargarh in C.T. Case No.79/17 of 2010 for offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code for committing gang rape on the victim on 06.12.2009 at about 5 p.m. at village Panichhatra under Town police station, Bargarh.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Santanu Bag (P.W.1) earns his livelihood out of vegetable business as well as labour work. He was also staying with his family members consisting of his wife and his daughter at Panichhatar. The appellant Raghu Sikka is the neighbour of the informant and he was a worker in the hotel of one Saurav Meher (P.W.3). On 06.12.2009 the wife of the informant returned home after selling vegetables and found her daughter (victim) was absent. She searched for her but could not trace her out. About one hour thereafter, the informant returned to his home and came to know from his wife that their daughter whose age was 15 years was not found at their home. While they were searching for their daughter, she returned home at about 8 p.m. On being asked, she cried and disclosed that the appellant Raghu Sikka took her from the house telling her to give sweets and when darkness set in, the appellant Raghu Sikka and one of his associate forcibly committed rape on her and thereafter they left her.

(3.) The informant lodged the F.I.R. before the Inspector in charge, Town police station, Bargarh in pursuance of which Bargarh Town P.S. Case No. 366 dated 06.12.2009 was registered under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Raghu Sikka and his associate and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the appellants.