DOLA @ DOLAGOBINDA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.1992 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. No.65/2 of 1992-92 holding both of them guilty under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in short compass, is that on 24.03.1990 around 8 p.m. when the victim was enroute home from her road side "Eating House" near Khuntagaon Weekly market, it is alleged no sooner she reached Talanali road, the appellants apparently concealed behind a "Mahula tree" suddenly emerged and finding her alone obstructed her movement, gagged her mouth by a napkin and in an erotic impulse they physically carried her to a road side date-palm clump where appellant - Akshya Pradhan at a knife point threatened her to kill if she dare to shout. Trembling in fear, the victim could not venture to raise alarm. The appellants laid her on the field. While appellant - Dolagobinda Pradhan pulled her hand upto head and gagged her mouth, appellant - Akshya Pradhan raised her legs and inserted his male organ inside the female genitalia of the victim, bite her cheeks and ravished her. After satisfying his sexual lust, appellant - Akshya Pradhan caught hold the victim by her arms to facilitate the appellant - Dolagobinda Pradhan to commit such bestial act. Being satisfied with their sexual appetite, the appellants left the place leaving the victim at high and dry. The crestfallen victim in paroxysm of despair and frustration rushed to her house at village-Nuadihi and immediately on reaching home narrated the entire horrendous episode before her husband. She also shown her torn inner garments worn at the time of occurrence and the injuries she sustained on her cheeks to her husband. The Police Station being at a considerable distance and that being night hours, on the following day at around 11 a.m. the victim and her husband reached Police Station and lodged F.I.R. (Ext.1). P.W.7 took up investigation of the case, seized the wearing apparels of the victim worn at the time of incident and her broken glass bungles as per seizure list (Exts.5 and 6 respectively). The victim was referred for medical examination at C.H.C., Lahunipada, the appellants were arrested and after completion of due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in accordance with law where they pleaded not guilty to the charge. As such, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, exhibited 14 documents including the medical reports, Chemical examination report and also produced Material Objects viz. M.Os.I to V. No evidence, however, adduced on behalf of the appellants who have taken a plea of false implication on account of animosity with the husband of the victim.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the husband of the victim having not supported the case of the prosecution and the appellants and the husband of the victim being in loggerheads on some issue or others and admittedly, on the morning of that alleged date of occurrence, the appellants and the husband of the victim having fought with each other, no implicit reliance can be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim who had a strong motive to implicate the appellants in serious crime.