SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
December 18,2002
SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KRISHAN LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]RAFIQ VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH SAUDAGAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD MAHARASHTRA STATE VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN:CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN POLICE SUB INSPECTOR POLICE STATION SITABULDI NAGPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. LEKH RAJ [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. N K THE ACCUSED [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. OM PRAKASH [LAWS(HPH)-2004-10-12] [REFERED TO : AIR 2003 SC 2136 : 2003 AIR SCW 154 : (2002) 10 SCC 743 13]RANGESH VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-576] [REFERRED TO]
BAHADURSINH KANUBHA RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-516] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA, THROUGH MARGAO TOWN POLICE STATION, MARGAO, GOA VS. RAJNEESH KUMAR SINGH, MAJOR, S/O JAIRAM SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2018-1-180] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH @ KANIYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-12-117] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJAL RAI ALIAS ADRIAN VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2021-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. DILIP GUHA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. MOTILAL LAMANI [LAWS(BOM)-2023-1-133] [REFERRED TO]
KULLU @ DEEPAK VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2005-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHSHIL ALIAS SAGAR RAMCHANDRA JAIN JANGALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
PUNIT THAKUR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-11-89] [REFERRED]
RAGHUVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
PARSU ALIAS PARASRAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-4-207] [REFERRED TO]
MAKRAJ LIMBOO VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2021-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
VADDI SRINIVASA RAO VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-3-118] [REFERRED TO]
PARMAR MANISHBHAI BABULAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-11-258] [REFERRED TO]
GURUPADA DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-213] [REFERRED TO]
VINESH FAL DESSAI VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VS. S I OF POLICE MUNNAR [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SABUJ KHAN DAKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
PINU ALIAS JAMAL MANIK SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
M.MARIAPPAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
Siddaraju S/o Basavaraju VS. State by Nanjangud Rural Police, Nanjargud Represented by The State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bangalore - 560001 [LAWS(KAR)-2011-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWARUP VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(UTN)-2010-7-337] [REFERRED TO]
TITIN KAR ALIAS TATAN ALIAS SUNJAY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL BABAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-9-153] [REFERRED TO 24]
ANAND KUMAR VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2004-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
DHIREN GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHRAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2012-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
ASGAR ANSARI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LAL KALUNDIA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN GIRI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
AJAYAN M K @ KUNJAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-250] [REFERRED]
HARISHCHANDRA SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2005-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
NELAPATLA PULLAYYA VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-2004-8-165] [REFERRED TO]
D DURGESH ALIAS DURGI VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2010-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTE RAJA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2009-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
ISMILEBHAI @ DADU DILAVARBHAI VIRAMBHAI PAREDI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-518] [REFERRED TO]
FULCHAND VASANT BHAIRAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-134] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SAHADY HAJARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. JITENDER KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-358] [REFERRED TO]
C RANGA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-2-83] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-112] [REFERRED]
SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-12-106] [REFERRED TO]
LAWRENCE DIAS S/O ANTHONY DIAS VS. STATE THROUGH PP HIGH COURT COMPLEX, PANAJI-GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-208] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA TANAJI SAPKAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-227] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SARWAN KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
NAGJIBHAI VERSIBHAI RAVAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-314] [REFERRED TO]
MIRTHAGAI ALI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-142] [REFERRED TO]
HAYAT SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(UTN)-2004-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
Rameshwarnath Dhashrathnath Upadhyay VS. State of Maharashtra [LAWS(BOM)-2003-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MATIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
ISMILEBHAI @ DADU DILAVARBHAI VIRAMBHAI PAREDI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-6-391] [REFERRED TO]
VINU KARMASHI RADADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH BAGHEL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-164] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa, dated 27th July, 1993. The appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under S. 376, I.P.C. and S. 342, I.P.C. by the Sessions Court, Kalahandi, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under S. 376, I.P.C. and for three months for the offence under S. 342, I.P.C. The conviction and sentence of the appellant was confirmed by the High Court.
(2.)During the relevant time, the appellant was a District Malaria Officer. The complainant (hereinafter referred to as Ms. X) was a lady Supervisor working in the integrated Child Development Project. She was a post-graduate and was about 29 years of age during the relevant time. She was staying in a rented house owned by the local post master. The case of the prosecution was that on 1-3-1987, P.W. 2, a female Anganwadi worker, along with her female helper came to Ms. X at 6 p.m. in a jeep and told her that she was required by District Social Welfare Officer. Ms. X accompanied them in the jeep which was being driven by a driver and there was also a Malaria Inspector in the jeep. P.W. 2 told Ms. X that she had come pursuant to the direction given by the appellant and that she had been told to inform Ms. X that D.S.W.O required her presence. At about 7 p.m., all of them left in the jeep and when they reached a small town, which was about 13 kms. away from the residence of Ms. X, the appellant was waiting there. The further case of the prosecution is that when the jeep reached that place. P.W. 2, (the female Anganwadi worker) and her helper alighted from the jeep and Ms. X though wanted to alight, but she was prevented from doing so and the appellant got into the driver's seat of the jeep and drove away the vehicle speedily. The jeep driven by the appellant along with Ms. X, the Malaria Inspector and the driver reached the house of the appellant at about 11.30 p.m. The house of the appellant was about 120 kms. away from the place of residence of Ms. X. Ms. X was told that D.S.W.O. was sitting inside the house and the appellant invited Ms. X to his house. The bag of Ms. X was carried inside the house of the appellant by a peon. The case of the prosecution is that as soon as Ms. X entered the house of the appellant, the appellant closed the door. Though Ms. X wanted to leave the place, she was not allowed to go. She was offered dinner, but she declined to have it. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with Ms. X and she fell unconscious. When she regained her senses, she found her clothes in disorder and discovered that she had been ravished by the appellant. At about 7.30 a.m. on 2-3-1987. P.W. 3, the driver along with one Junior Engineer came to the house of the appellant and made enquiries about Ms. X. The Junior Engineer told that he came to know that Ms. X was ill and had come for treatment and that she was in the house of the appellant. P.W. 3 brought an autorickshaw and in that autorickshaw Ms. X proceeded to the bus stand and travelled in a bus and reached the house of P.W. 4, a project officer. P.W. 4 found Ms. X in a disturbed mood and in spite of repeated questions, Ms. X did not tell as to what had happened to her. In the evening, P.W. 4 came back from her office and made further enquiries when she found Ms. X crying and not taking any food. On the next morning, Ms. X told everything about the incident that had taken place in the house of the appellant and narrated how she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. P.W. 4 advised her to give a statement in writing. On 4-3-1987, P.W. 4, along with Ms. X, went to the police station and handed over the written statement. As per the direction of the Investigating Officer, Ms. X was sent for medical examination. On the next day, she handed over the clothes worn by her at the time of commission or offence by the appellant.
(3.)The Investigating Officer got the statements of the witnesses recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. The Sessions Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence of wrongful confinement and rape. In the Sessions Court, the appellant admitted that Ms. X was brought to his house in a jeep. According to the appellant, he was told that a sick lady required treatment urgently. The Malaria Inspector and the driver were present in the jeep and he took the sick lady in the jeep and when the jeep reached his place of residence at about 11.30 p.m., he asked the Malaria Inspector to take the sick lady to the hospital, but she requested that she may be given shelter in his house. As it was difficult to find an alternative place, he allowed the lady to stay in his house and asked the watchman to give her food. The sick lady was found vomiting. The watchman gave her a separate room and the appellant slept in his own room. The appellant completely denied the offence of rape and wrongful confinement.
(2.)During the relevant time, the appellant was a District Malaria Officer. The complainant (hereinafter referred to as Ms. X) was a lady Supervisor working in the integrated Child Development Project. She was a post-graduate and was about 29 years of age during the relevant time. She was staying in a rented house owned by the local post master. The case of the prosecution was that on 1-3-1987, P.W. 2, a female Anganwadi worker, along with her female helper came to Ms. X at 6 p.m. in a jeep and told her that she was required by District Social Welfare Officer. Ms. X accompanied them in the jeep which was being driven by a driver and there was also a Malaria Inspector in the jeep. P.W. 2 told Ms. X that she had come pursuant to the direction given by the appellant and that she had been told to inform Ms. X that D.S.W.O required her presence. At about 7 p.m., all of them left in the jeep and when they reached a small town, which was about 13 kms. away from the residence of Ms. X, the appellant was waiting there. The further case of the prosecution is that when the jeep reached that place. P.W. 2, (the female Anganwadi worker) and her helper alighted from the jeep and Ms. X though wanted to alight, but she was prevented from doing so and the appellant got into the driver's seat of the jeep and drove away the vehicle speedily. The jeep driven by the appellant along with Ms. X, the Malaria Inspector and the driver reached the house of the appellant at about 11.30 p.m. The house of the appellant was about 120 kms. away from the place of residence of Ms. X. Ms. X was told that D.S.W.O. was sitting inside the house and the appellant invited Ms. X to his house. The bag of Ms. X was carried inside the house of the appellant by a peon. The case of the prosecution is that as soon as Ms. X entered the house of the appellant, the appellant closed the door. Though Ms. X wanted to leave the place, she was not allowed to go. She was offered dinner, but she declined to have it. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with Ms. X and she fell unconscious. When she regained her senses, she found her clothes in disorder and discovered that she had been ravished by the appellant. At about 7.30 a.m. on 2-3-1987. P.W. 3, the driver along with one Junior Engineer came to the house of the appellant and made enquiries about Ms. X. The Junior Engineer told that he came to know that Ms. X was ill and had come for treatment and that she was in the house of the appellant. P.W. 3 brought an autorickshaw and in that autorickshaw Ms. X proceeded to the bus stand and travelled in a bus and reached the house of P.W. 4, a project officer. P.W. 4 found Ms. X in a disturbed mood and in spite of repeated questions, Ms. X did not tell as to what had happened to her. In the evening, P.W. 4 came back from her office and made further enquiries when she found Ms. X crying and not taking any food. On the next morning, Ms. X told everything about the incident that had taken place in the house of the appellant and narrated how she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. P.W. 4 advised her to give a statement in writing. On 4-3-1987, P.W. 4, along with Ms. X, went to the police station and handed over the written statement. As per the direction of the Investigating Officer, Ms. X was sent for medical examination. On the next day, she handed over the clothes worn by her at the time of commission or offence by the appellant.
(3.)The Investigating Officer got the statements of the witnesses recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. The Sessions Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence of wrongful confinement and rape. In the Sessions Court, the appellant admitted that Ms. X was brought to his house in a jeep. According to the appellant, he was told that a sick lady required treatment urgently. The Malaria Inspector and the driver were present in the jeep and he took the sick lady in the jeep and when the jeep reached his place of residence at about 11.30 p.m., he asked the Malaria Inspector to take the sick lady to the hospital, but she requested that she may be given shelter in his house. As it was difficult to find an alternative place, he allowed the lady to stay in his house and asked the watchman to give her food. The sick lady was found vomiting. The watchman gave her a separate room and the appellant slept in his own room. The appellant completely denied the offence of rape and wrongful confinement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.