SANJU GOPE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who were six in number were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. No. 6/6 of 1993 for commission of offences under Section 376 (2) (g) and under Section 506/34, I.P.C. The accused persons were found not guilty of the charge under Section 506/34, I.P.C. and were acquitted. But they were found guilty of the charge under Section 376 (2) (g), I.P.C. and were convicted thereunder and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.

(2.) The case of the prosecution may shortly be stated as under:On 2-7-1992 which was the day of car festival the parents of the prosecutrix Kamal Samad went away to another village in the morning to look after their cultivation and in the afternoon at about 4 p.m. the victim girl along with her friends Sabe Soren went to Biramitropur to witness the car festival. While witnessing that festival, somehow they were separated due to havy rush and despite search the prosecutrix could not trace out her companion Sabe Soren. After witnessing the festival, while she was returning home alone she met some of her known boys viz., Soresen, Kishore and another and joined them in returning to the village. When they reached near the N.A.C. office they noticed the accused persons standing and talking something among themselves. After they crossed, the accused persons followed them and surrounded Sorasen (PW-8). The prosecutrix and her two companions while proceeded ahead, the accused Sanju Gope and Jiden Topno came nearer them and offered to escort the victim girl to her house since they like her brothers as she has tied Rakhi on their hands previously. On this, Kishore and other boys left the place leaving the prosecutrix with Sanju Gone and Siden. Then accused Sanju and Jidan took her to Biramitrapur. It was then about 9 p.m. There the accused Sanju removed her wearing apparels and made her lie on the ground and committed rape on her. The accused Jidan followed him. The accused called the other four accused persons who arrived there and committed rape on her successively. The prosecutrix felt extremely tired due to successive forcible intercourse and was not able to resist them. After some time she was helped by some of the accused persons to get up and they escorted her up to some distance and then went away. She returned home by 12' O' clock in the night. At home, he could not disclose the incident to any one out of shame. But later on, she wrote on a piece of paper about commission of rape on her by the accused persons and kept it on the table. Due to rape by these accused persons she sustained injuries on her breasts and other parts of her body and there was also bleeding from her private parts. She washed away her wearing apparels. As the accused persons had threatened her to kill if she would report the matter to Police, out of fear, she did not disclose the incident earlier to anyone. But on 17-7-1992 she reached the Police-station along with apparels and other records and lodged FIR (Ext. 1) narrating the incident. Consequently the case was registered and investigation started. During investigation, the prosecutrix as well as the accused persons were medically examined and their wearing apparels were also seized and sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and eventually the accused persons faced trial before the learned Add itional Sessions Judge, Rourkela which ended in their conviction.

(3.) The defence plea is one of complete denial. The accused persons have taken a common plea to the effect that on the date of occurrence after witnessing car festival, they noticed the prosecutrix and Soresen (PW-8) coming out of some hedge near the place called Mundia Bangela and arranging their dresses in proper order and when questioned by them the prosecutrix challenged them as to who they were to question her and she also threatened to set them right. The defence case is that for that a false case has been foisted against them out of grudge. The accused Halan Samad has taken a further plea that as the prosecutrix was of immoral character and had affairs with others for which they had cautioned her and on 15-7-1992 he had quarrel with the brother of the prosecutrix concerning the above matter and for these reasons she has falsely implicated him in this case.