BABU @ RAMAKANTA SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by filing this revision, has assailed the judgment dated 10.01.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore (as then it was) in A.S.J. Crl. Appeal No.42 of 1993 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.1993 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in S.T. Case No.5/69 of 1992.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim (P.W.12) was residing with her father (P.W.1), who was running a saloon in Balasore town, at a distance of two kms away from their house. It is stated that on 25.9.1992, victim's father (P.W.1) being not able to come back, slept for the night in his saloon when the mother of the victim, i.e, the wife of P.W.1 who has been examined as P.W.9, had gone to her father's place in another village along with her son and two daughters leaving the victim (P.W.12) with her two sisters, one of whom has been examined as P.W.7. It is stated that when they were sleeping in the night at home, which has four rooms, after taking dinner around 10.30 p.m, the victim was surprised to see that somebody had chained the door of the room where she was sleeping alone from outside. So, she called her sister (P.W.7) by her surname and shouted as regards the chaining of the door. P.W.7 then out of curiosity winked through the gap of the doors, was astonished to see the accused standing outside and requesting for a glass of water. Out of fear, P.W.7 did not open the door and asked the accused to take water from the tube-well. It is alleged that the accused then insisted her to open the door or else to throw bomb. In spite of that, when this P.W.7 did not open the door, the accused threatened her with dire consequences. He then tied the rings of the door of the room where P.W.7 was sleeping and thus prevented her from coming out and then falsely stating that a bull had taken grass by making entry to the house, unchained the door of the room where the victim (P.W.12) was sleeping. When responding to that, the victim (P.W.12) opened the door and came out to urinate, the accused forced entry to the room. It is stated that he then closed the door of the room and asked the victim (P.W.12) to keep quiet by giving threat to her life. When the victim wanted to open the door so as to attend call of nature, the accused opened the door. It is only at that time, the victim (P.W.12) asked the accused as to his visit to their house at such odd hour in the night. The victim having attended the call of nature, when again went inside the room, the accused locked the door from inside and pointing a knife, giving threat to her life, committed sexual intercourse upon her against her will despite protest. It is stated that in this way, the accused repeatedly committed sexual intercourse and after quite sometime, P.W.12, with much difficulty, when the condition of the accused became weak because of continuous sexual intercourse, could escape.

(3.) The plea of the defence is that of complete denial and false implication in view of the refusal to accept the proposal of the father of the victim (P.W.1) to marry her daughter because of the fact that they belong to different caste.