ROGA @ MURALI SETHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in S.T. No.227 of 2009 on the file of the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jajpur. The learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jajpur vide the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2010 held the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 376(2)(f)/377 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively.

(2.) Prosecution case placed before the trial court is that informant - Anima Biswal, a resident of village- Kotapur accompanied with by her minor son and daughter, had been to the house of her sister at village- Baliganda to attend a marriage ceremony. There, on 01.05.2009 at about 7 p.m. the informant with other relatives had gone to the temple of village deity to perform some rituals. On her return, she found the victim absent in the house and on search, found the victim crying coming from the side of a bomboo grove. Being asked, she narrated that the appellant who belongs to Kunarpur, had taken her to the grove on the pretext of taking to her mother and he committed rape and unnatural sex with her. The informant waited for return of her husband from Baripada and on his return, F.I.R. was lodged on 03.05.2009, basing on which investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer arrested the appellant, sent requisition for medical examination of the appellant and the victim and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Placing reliance on such case of the prosecution, the trial court framed charge against the appellant, as stated earlier and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge, as such, the trial commenced. During trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses besides exhibiting certain documents and Material Objects. On the other hand, the appellant, who took a plea of denial and false implication, examined himself as D.W.1 to prove his defence plea. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses and other materials on record and repelling the defence plea, returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, as stated earlier.

(3.) During course of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the medical evidence on record does not support the prosecution case and the prosecution witnesses are being the relations of the victim, their evidence should not have been accepted by the trial court as corroboration to the version of the victim, more so in the backdrop of previous animosity. Coupled with the same, when the version of the victim is contradictory to the version in the F.I.R., the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable in law and should be set-aside.