BEDA @ SANJEEB MALLIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this appeal, the appellant has called in question his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 376, 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh vide judgment dated 24.01.2011 in S.T. No.11 of 2008(A) sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two years, R.I. for two years and S.I. for one month respectively with a order that the substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix (P.W.1), a young girl of 15 years of age (according to the medical evidence, the age was around 17 years) was subjected to rape by the appellant on 01.05.2007. The prosecutrix and her cousin sister - Gitanjali Sandha (P.W.2) had been to Pakhaniapali ridge of village-Sanajhankarpalli to attend the call of nature. On that day, the prosecutrix was in the house of her sister in that village. While the girls after attending the call of nature enroute home, the present appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix, physically lifted and carried her to a nearby bush where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The companion of the appellant, namely, Ramaji Bisoi obstructed P.W.2 and criminally intimidated her not to shout to facilitate appellant to commit the bestial act. However, P.W.2 escaped and rushed to her house, informed the inmates about that horrendous occurrence. After satisfying his sexual appetite the appellant left the victim high and dry. The crestfallen victim being in pains, unable to walk properly, wobbled home and on the way she come across her mother, sister, P.W.2 and few others of the vicinity who being informed by P.W.2 were searching her. The prosecutrix narrated before them that the appellant sexually ravished her despite her visible protests and that she could not raise alarm as her mouth was gagged and the appellant had threatened her to kill if she venture to escape and raise alarm. On the next morning F.I.R. (Ext.1) was lodged at Sagada Police outpost under Manmunda Police Station where after the case was registered at Manmunda Police Station, investigation commenced, the prosecutrix was referred for medical examination, her wearing apparels (M.Os.I to V) were seized, the appellant was arrested, also referred for medical examination, his wearing 'Lungi' (M.O.VI) was also seized. All seized apparels were sent for chemical examination and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant and his companion under Sections 341, 323, 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of IPC. The case having been committed to the trial court, the trial court framed charge under Sections 341, 506 and 376 of IPC against the present appellant and under Sections 341, 506, 376 read with Section 109 of IPC against his co-accused. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. However, when the appellant jumped bail and absconded, his case was split-up on 09.03.2009. Hence, the separate trial and judgment.

(3.) Prosecution, in support of its case, examined apart from the prosecutrix, her parents and relatives, doctor and the Investigating Officer (P.Ws.1 to 9). Prosecution has also produced the seized wearing apparels of the prosecutrix besides the 'Lungi' of the appellant (M.Os.I to VI). The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegation, but examined none.