BHRAMARBAR JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Bhramarbar Jena faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Bhadrak in Sessions Trial Case No. 26/100 of 2004 for offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 05.3.2004 at about 12 noon, he committed rape on the victim who was a minor girl while she was sleeping in her house at village Rajendrapur under Bhandaripokhari police station in the district of Bhadrak.

(2.) The prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ext.3) lodged by Padmalochan Nayak (P.W.3), the father of the victim is that his marriage was solemnized about ten to fifteen years back and he was staying at Rajendrapur and his wife Susila Nayak (P.W.7) was also staying with him and he was having two daughters and one son. It is further stated that on 05.03.2004 in the morning hours, when he had gone outside in his work so also his wife, at about 1 o' clock in the afternoon when he came back home and went to attend the call of nature, his wife came running and intimated him that the appellant committed rape on the victim who was aged about eleven years. Hearing such news, the informant rushed back to his house and asked the victim about the occurrence who stated that while she was sleeping, the appellant entered inside the house and forcibly committed rape on her. The informant and his wife found bleeding from the private parts of the victim. The informant disclosed about the occurrence before the gentlemen of the village and then the victim was taken to the hospital where she was treated and report was lodged at the police station. It is stated that the wearing apparels of the victim were also containing blood stains.

(3.) P.W.11 Susil Kumar Mishra was the officer in charge of Bhandaripokhari police station, who on receipt of such written report, registered Bhandaripokhari P.S. Case No.21 of 2004 on 05.02004 under sections 450/376(f) of the Indian Penal Code and he himself took up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, he examined the victim, the informant and the scribe of the F.I.R. and other witnesses. He visited the spot, and prepared the spot map (Ext.8), seized the wearing apparels of the victim under seizure list Ext.1. On the same day, he arrested the appellant and sent him for medical examination and also seized the dhoti of the appellant under seizure list Ext.2.