SURENDRA KUMAR PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted Under Sections 376 and 392, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years and R.I. For 2 years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 5OO/ -, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month on each count, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada, in S.T. No. 11/130 of 1993.

(2.) THE victim was a minor girl aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence. She had gone to Shiva Ratri Mela accompanied by her maternal uncle, maternal aunts and others. While her other relations had gone to the temple for the purpose of worship, she was watching 'Pala' alone. After evening, the accused who was known to the victim came there and asked her to accompany him so bring 'Prasad'. On the way, the accused met the parents of the victim and told them that he was taking the victim to bring 'Prasad' which he had brought from Bhubaneswar. On the way, the accused took the victim to a secluded spot, took away a silver chain and a gold nose ornament worn by the victim and thereafter raped her. The victim became unconscious and the accused left the place. After regaining consciousness, the victim came running towards the road, but fell down. Two old people brought her and left her near the cycle stand of the 'Mela'. Thereafter she was taken to the hospital. F.I.R. was recorded on the basis of statement of the father of the victim and after investigation charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) THE victim was examined as P.W. 5. The doctor who examined her was examined as P.W. 10. P.W. 3 is the father and P.W. 6 is the maternal aunt of the victim. P.W. 1 is the maternal uncle of the victim. P.W. 2 is a co -villager who had accompanied P.W. 1 and also a witness to seizure. P.W. 4 was the doctor who examined the accused on 23.2.1993, about four days after the occurrence. P.W. 7 was a seizure witness who was declared hostile. P.W. 9 was the doctor who examined the blood group and P.W. 8 was the Radiologist who had taken the X -ray of the victim. P.W. 11 is the Officer -in -charge. The order of conviction is based on the testimony of the victim herself as corroborated by the post -occurrence witnesses, such as P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 and also the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 10) regarding existence of some injuries on the private part of the victim.