SUKRU GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal remitted back by the apex Court the Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge -cum -Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore on 12.12.1994 in S.C. No. 398 of 1993 convicting him under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T, (P.A.) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that on 04.09.1993 P.W.4, the informant, lodged an F.I.R. alleging that on the said day at 1.00 P.M. while his wife, P.W.1 was collecting fire wood in a nearby jungle the Appellant, who was collecting cow dung in the said jungle, told her that a big piece of wood was lying nearby the jungle. The victim, P.W.1 refused to go there. Then the Appellant forcibly pulled her down on the ground and in spite of her resistance committed rape on her inside that jungle by raising her saree and also removing the paid which she was using as she was having her monthly menstruation. While the Appellant was committing rape, P.W.2 arrived at the spot and saw the Appellant. Seeing P.W.2, Appellant left the victim and fled away. Due to rape on her, P.W.1 had prof used bleeding. She narrated the incident to her husband P.W.4, who reported the matter before the police. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the present Appellant.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited eleven documents. P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 is an eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. P.Ws.3 and 5 are post occurrence witnesses. P.W.4, the husband of the victim, is the informant. P.W.6 is the doctor who examined the victim. P.W.7 is the A.S.I, of police who reduced to writing the oral report of the informant. P.W.8 is the I.O. The Appellant in support of his plea examined his two co -villagers as P.Ws.1 and 2.