SANTOSH KUMAR MANDHATE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 3. 2. 1990 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting the appellant of the charge under Section 376 i. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for five years in S. T. No. 145/81 of 1989 is assailed in this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THE criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an F. I. R. lodged by one pratap Kumar Mohanty PW2 inter alia alleging that the accused appellant along with one Rabi was staying as a tenant in the house of PW2. By efflux of time the accused appellant developed cordial relationship with the family members of PW2. In the morning of 20. 6. 1989 taking advantage of absence of PW2 in his house and his wife pw1 was engaged in household work, called the victim girl-Sangita PW3 aged about 7 to 8 years to his room on the plea of fetching some "gudakhu". Sangita PW3 without any idea about the ill motive of the accused went to his room with some "gudakhu". The accused was lying on the bed and he asked the little girl to press his back. It was alleged that Sangita, an innocent girl started pressing the back of the accused. At that juncture the accused, it was alleged, caught hold of the victim girl, laid her on the bed, opened her pant (Chadi) and threatening her against raising shout, forcibly raped her. Sangita bled profusely from her vagina and started crying. Being threatened to be killed by the accused, she could not shout and went on crying. When the accused let her go, she came and complained before her mother pw1 about bleeding from her private part. By then her father-PW2 had returned home and PW1 narrated the facts to him. The victim girl was then taken to hospital by a rickshaw. Near the hospital she disclosed the incident to her mother-PW1. The doctor started the treatment, stitched the wound, suspected some foul play and enquired about the cause of injury. It was alleged that sangita-PW3 disclosed the overt acts committed by the accused to the doctor. The matter was thereafter reported at the police and the accused appellant faced trial for commission of offence; under Section 376 i. P. C. The plea of the defence was complete denial.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to substantiate its case got ten witnesses examined and exhibited about twelve documents. The defence on the other hand did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs1 and 2 were respectively the mother and father of the victim girl-PW3, pws 4, 5,6 and 7 were the witnesses to the seizure. PW8 was the doctor who had examined the victim girl while he was on emergency duty at Tata Refractories Hospital. PW9 was another doctor who was present while PW8 examined the victim girl. PW10 was the Investigating Officer. Apart from the oral evidence the prosecution also marked two Pants, Frock, Bed sheet, kantha and Lungi as Material Objects. Relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 which was corroborated by two Doctors PWs 8 and 9, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of PW3 the minor girl was trustworthy. It was observed that the said child witness successfully stood the cross-examination by defence and nothing could be elicited in cross-examination to suspect her evidence, which was rather corroborated by other circumstances, and held that the prosecution was able to bring home the charge of rape against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused was found guilty for commission of offence under Section 376 I. P. C.