STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BANKA JAYASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State, by filing this appeal, has called in question, the judgment dated 6.1.1992, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No.44 of 1990. By the said judgment, the respondent (accused) having faced the trial being charged for offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ,,the IPC), has been acquitted.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 7.7.1990, the victim (P.W.1) and her friend (P.W.2) had been to Podala Laxmi weekly market. After purchasing bangles in the said market, they went to one shop where they took liquor and around 5 pm, leaving that place, they and started their journey to the village. It is stated that on the way near the Primary Health Centre, one Podlam Domb caught hold of P.w.2 and this accused caught hold of P.W.1. P.W.2 somehow managed to escape from the clutch of that Podlam. The accused further dragged P.W.1 (victim) near the bushes by the side of the road and there having forcibly made her lie on the ground, by removing her wearing apparels, despite protest and resistance, committed rape on her. It is stated that during the period, one Maleswar and Endana who happen to be the brother of the victim (P.W.1), arrived and having seen them, the accused left the victim and fled away. The victim was then slapped by her brother and seeing that, P.W.2, who was hiding her presence nearby fled away. The peon of the Health Centre came to the spot and before him the victim narrated the incident of rape upon her by the accused. They all returned to the village and on 8.7.1990, the matter was orally reported by the victim at the police station, which was reduced into writing vide Ext.8. This led to the registration of the case at the Police Station. The investigation commenced. Finally, charge-sheet having been submitted, the accused faced the trial, as aforesaid. The defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has altogether examined 12 witnesses when the defence has examined one witness. The prosecution has also proved the FIR (Ext.8), seizure lists and other contemporaneous documents prepared and collected in course of the investigation.