AJAYA DIGAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant from inside the jail has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2013 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Baliguda in S.T. No.21/2012.

(2.) Prosecution case briefly stated is that sometime prior to 03.03.2012 the appellant somehow convinced the victim (P.W.19) for payment of a sum of Rs.200/- so that he would arrange one bank loan for her. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 03.03.2012 around 10 A.M., the appellant came to the house of the victim and intimated about the sanction of the said loan. Accordingly, the victim was asked to go with him to the Bank at K. Nuagaon. So, the victim accompanied the appellant to the Bank where the appellant gave her a paper and showing her a cheque told her that it had to be encashed in the Bank at Baliguda and then she was asked to accompany him to Baliguda. The victim believing the version of the appellant proceeded to Baliguda. On arrival there at Baliguda, the appellant asked her to sit near a cabin when the appellant went for a stroll. It is alleged that after sometime, the appellant came there, offered her a soft drink and some medicines stating that those are required to be taken so that her clear and proper photograph would be captured when it would be so taken, being the requirement. The victim accepting the version of the appellant did everything what he wanted. It is stated that thereafter instead of taking photograph or going to the Bank, the appellant told her that let them then go back home. So, they proceeded to village Jamapadar and on their way back having reached village Nuagaon when they were proceeding on foot to the village, the informant felt dizzier with severe head reeling. The appellant held her hands and took her in another route to a lonely place. It is alleged that the appellant at that place committed rape on her. The victim since was dizzying and having severe head reeling, she could not at all resist being not in a position to have any physical movement for intake of said medicines and as its after affect. The appellant then carrying her little away on the road, left her alone. The daughter and son of the victim (P.Ws.16 and 20) seeing their mother in that helpless condition took her to the house and therefrom to the hospital for treatment. After about 10 days when she returned to her normalcy, she disclosed the entire incident and the F.I.R. was lodged.

(3.) Prosecution in the trial has examined altogether 20 witnesses. Out of whom P.W.6 is the person, who had scribed the F.I.R. lodged by the victim P.W.19. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the constables, who have performed their duties as directed by the Investigating Officer whereas P.W.7 is the husband of the younger sister of the victim. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the victim's niece; P.W. 15 is the nephew; P.W.10 is the Doctor whereas P.Ws.11,12,13 and 14 are the witnesses, who have heard the incident from P.W.7. The son of the victim-informant has been examined as P.W.16. The Investigating Officer has come to be examined as P.W.17. A co-villager of the victim and a visitor to the house of the informant after she had been brought to her house from the place where she was lying unconscious after the said incident has been examined as P.W.18. The victim has been examined as P.W.19 and P.W.20 is her daughter.