SATGUN PASWAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant and two others faced trial for commission of offences Under Sections 302, 376, 377 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Learned Sessions Judge though acquitted the other two accused persons, holding that the prosecution was able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts/ convicted the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction dtd. 26.11.1999 the Appellant has preferred this appeal Under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE scenario of facts reveal that on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by Rama Chandra Barik (P.W.1) before the O.J.C., Sadar Police Station, Cuttack on 23.3.1997, the prosecution was set to motion. In his report the informant alleged that his sister Charulata Barik, aged about 11 years, had been to 'Kuakhai' river at about 12 noon to take her bath. As she did not return by 1.00 P.M., the informant went in search of her and found her chapal, pant, shirt and turmeric powder lying near Fakir Singh brick kiln. On being asked the Bihari workers, who were present there, told that his sister went on a cycle with some unknown person. Hearing the said information, the informant went towards Pratapnagar, Bhanapur, Gopalpur and Ballikuda in search of his sister, but in vain. He returned home at about 4.00 P.M. and got information that his sister was lying dead near the river embankment, then he went to the place of occurrence and found his sister lying in a ditch covered by raw bricks. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R.

(3.) THE plea of the accused persons is of complete denial. In order to establish that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed rape and carnal intercourse against the order of nature with Charulata Bank and murdered her, the prosecution got examined as many as thirteen witnesses. The informant, who happens to be the brother of deceased Charulata Barik, was examined as P.W.1. The witness, who found the dead body inside the ditch, was examined as P.W.2.The witness, who was present at the time of lifting the dead body from the ditch was examined as P.W.3. P.W.4. is a witness to the seizure. P.W.5 was the Scientific Officer, who visited the spot, conducted examination of the place of occurrence and took photographs of the dead body. P.W.6 was a witness to the fact that the accused persons were working in the brick kiln. P.W.7 was a witness, who detected the chadi and frock lying near the river side on getting information from the accused persons. He also went in search of Charulata Barik being misguided by the accused persons, but later on got information about the recovery of the dead body from the ditch of the brick kiln, went and found the dead body stained with blood and dragging marks on the earth. P.W.18 was a witness who saw Charulata Barik lying dead in the ditch being surrounded by bricks. P.W.9 identified the accused persons as workers in the brick kiln. P.W.10 was the Scientific Officer, who conducted polygraph examination of the accused persons. P.W.11 was a constable and was a witness to the seizure of nail clippings. P.W.12 was the doctor, who examined accused -Appellant Satgun Paswan on 26.3.1997. He had also examined accused Dhanaraj Paswan and Harinarayam Ram. He had also conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body. P.W.13 was the O.I.C., Sadar Police Station, Cuttack, who took up investigation. It is pertinent to note that no witness was examined on behalf of the accused persons.