D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant Ram Mahato @ Ram Prasad @ Ram Prasad Mahato was charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code as also for the offence under Sec.376(G) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and 10 years for the offence under Sec.376(G) of the Indian Penal Code. The present appellant assailed the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant (PW10) vide her fardbeyan (F.I.R.) dated 1.10.1998, is that on the night between 30.9.1908/ l.l0.1998 while the informant along with her husband Ravi Pradhan (deceased) was sleeping in her house situated within the premises of the soap factory, they were attacked by miscreants who came into the courtyard of the house by scaling the boundary wall. In their attempt to forcibly open the door, they had broken the window 'sglass pane, through which they shot at and injured the informant 'shusband and compelled the informant to open the door. After ransacking the house, they abducted the informant from the house and took her towards the nearby railway line at a distance of about 500 meters where they committed gang rape on her. Before carrying away the informant, they had bolted the door of the adjacent room of her father -in -law from outside. The informant on being released by the assailants returned home and opened the door of the room of her father -in -law and narrated the incident to him. She found that her husband had died on account of bullet injury. On information, the police arrived and recorded the fardbeyan (F.I.R.), on the basis of which, the case was registered against the present appellant and others. The informant had identified and named the present appellant in her fardbeyan. At the trial, altogether 12 witnesses, were examined including the informant (PW10), her father (PW7), the doctor. (PW12) who had medically examined the informant as well as the doctor (PW1) who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, husband of the informant and the investigating officer (PW8).
(3.) THE trial court on considering the evidence on record, had placed reliance upon the testimony of the informant and finding support thereto from the testimony of her father (PW7) and also from the medical evidence besides the evidence of the investigating officer. (PW8), had recorded its finding of guilt for both the aforementioned offences against the appellant and sentenced him accordingly.;