(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.