TUTU ALIAS BIJAYAKUMAR PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 3-5-2000 passed by the learned additional District and Sessions Judge, nayagarh in Special G. R. Case No. 48 of 1998 convicting appellant Dhirendra alias muna Patra in CRLA No. 137 of 2000 for commission of offence under Sections 366/34 and 368/34 of the I. P. C. read with Section 3 of the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act, 1989 as well as under Section 376 of the I. P. C. Appellants in both the appeals have been convicted under Section 3 (i) (xi) of the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act. Appellants Tutu alias Bijay kumar Pattnaik, Debraj Biswal, Balia Baral and Muna Patra alias Dhirendra have also been convicted for commission of offence under Section 366/34 of the I. P. C. Appellants Tutu alias Bijaya Kumar Patnaik. Ayub khan, Tulu alias Pralaya Kumar Jagdev, debaraj Biswal, Balia Baral, Gandhia alias umesh Palai and Dhirendra alias Muna patra have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 368/34 of the I. P. C. Appellant Debaraj Biswal has further been convicted for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Trial Court has imposed different sentences for conviction under different provisions of the I. P. C. as well as the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act and the Arms Act.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that the victim is the daughter of the informant banamali Jena. The informant at the relevant time was working as a Chief Medical officer at Gouripur in the State of West Bengal, but the family members were staying in his native village Bhusundpur in the district of khurda. On 7-4-1998 the victim while standing near Ramachandi temple of chandpur and waiting for a bus to travel to khurda for appearing + 2 final year examination at about 12. 30 p. m. , the appellant muna Patra came near her driving a jeep bearing Registration No. OAC-2681 and asked her as to where she was to go and also offered her a lift in his vehicle. The victim boarded the jeep on the request of the said appellant and occupied the rear seat. Thereafter said appellant drove the jeep towards Khurda and after covering about 4 k. ms. he stopped the jeep on the direction of other four appellants, namely Tulu patnaik, Debaraj Biswal, Balia Baral and another who also boarded the jeep in the rear seat and thereafter appellant Muna patra drove the vehicle towards Chandpur. After crossing some distance on a Kacha road the vehicle stopped near a house situated away from the village Naramanabi. It is alleged that they confined the victim in the said house belonging to one Dinabandhu ranasingh and thereafter all of them left the place leaving appellant Muna Patra and the victim in the said house. It is also alleged by the prosecution that appellant Muna Patra forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the victim. P. W. 9 was informed about the said kidnapping by his son P. W. 6 on the same day and he came down to his village. He requested appellants Tutu Patnaik and ayub Khan to give information regarding whereabouts of the victim and only on 10-4-1998 the informant with family members went to the house of appellant Tutu Patnaik from where they were taken to village badapadar where they met the victim who was found to be surrounded by the appellants. When the informant tried to rescue her, appellant Debaraj threatened him by showing a gun and therefore they could not rescue the victim. Thereafter, all of them came back and tried to rescue the victim in different ways, but having failed in their attempts, they reported the matter to the police at Chandpur by lodging an F. I. R. on 12-4-1998. After receipt of the F. I. R. steps were taken for rescuing the victim and investigation was undertaken. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed for commission of the offences as stated earlier. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim belongs to Katia by caste which is a Scheduled Caste and therefore the appellants were also liable for commission of offence under Section 3 of the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act, 1989.

(3.) PLEA of defence is complete denial of the prosecution case. It is specific case of defence that the victim had love relationship with Muna Patra and as her marriage was settled by P. W. 9 with another person, and she was not willing to get married at the place where her father had decided, she had expressed her desire to take away from her parents' house. Appellant Muna Patra being an unemployed man, P. W. 9 never approved of such relationship and false case was foisted against him as well as other accused persons.