GUNA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction and the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. No. 19/118 of 2001 holding the appellant guilty of a charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ - (rupees two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for 6(six) months more, have been impugned in this appeal by the appellant from the jail. The prosecution came to the trial court with a case that on 30.11.2000 at about 9.00 P.M. when the victim (P.W. 10) and her blind husband (P.W. 1) were returning to their home in village Daddor after purchasing rice from Poda Astia market, near Daddor High School, the present appellant along with one Pradeep Singh (absconding accused) came from their backside and caught hold of the victim and her husband. While the absconding accused - Pradeep Singh caught hold of the husband of the victim, the present appellant dragged the victim to a nearby agricultural field, made her lie flat on the ground and lifting her clothes up to the waist level, committed rape on her. After having the sexual intercourse, he went near her husband and caught hold of him and the other accused Pradeep Singh came to her and committed rape on her. Then, both of them fled away from the place. P.W. 5 - Suni Singh and P.W. 6 - Ludri Singh, co -villagers of the victim, had arrived there and they heard the victim to be crying. They went near the victim, who narrated the incident to them, which the said witnesses narrated before the villagers, such as, P.W. 9 - Baidyanath Singh and others. Being advised by the local Sarpanch, the matter was reported in the Baripada Town police station at 3.00 P.M. on the following day by the victim orally, which was reduced into writing vide Exhibit -4 and police had registered the case and investigated. Police found substance in the report of the victim and, as such, filed Final Form disclosing appellant and his accomplice - Pradeep Singh, prima -facie committed the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C.

(2.) RELYING on such case of prosecution, which was supported by materials collected during investigation, charge was framed against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The appellant having denied the charge, was asked to face the trial. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, basically relying on the version of the victim (P.W. 10) and also the evidence of her husband (P.W. 1), repelled the appellant plea of denial and false implication and returned the judgment of conviction and sentence, as stated earlier.

(3.) IN response, drawing the notice of the Court to the evidence of the victim that she was ravished by the appellant and another against her will and without her consent and the version of her husband corroborating the same, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that there being no apparent reasons of the victim implicating the appellant in this case falsely, it is fallacious to say that there is no credible evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty of the charge and the trial court erred in convicting him. The evidence of the victim being clear, cogent and confidence inspiring and it being well settled in law that solely relying on the version of the victim, a conviction in a case of rape can be recorded, this Jail Criminal Appeal filed, therefore, is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the State.