BAPI @ DEBADUTTA RATNAKUMAR PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the appeals judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.1.2006 passed by Sri Srikanta Nayak, Special Judge, Keonjhar in S.C. No.121 of 1996 is under challenge, by which the learned Court while acquitting the appellants of the offences under Section 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 convicted them under Section 376 (2)(g) of the I.P.C. and sentenced each to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Therefore both the appeals were heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim lady (name with -held) who was aged about 35 years at the time of occurrence is a widow and maintains her livelihood by purchasing and selling vegetables in weekly markets. On 20.12.1996, in the evening, as per her practice, she came back after purchasing vegetables from the local Hat at Champua. She came to the Iron Store, where she used to store the vegetables. Since the owner of the said Store was absent she came to another nearby betel shop of one Sarju, where the appellant Goura Chandra Maharana was working and as per his instruction she kept the vegetables in the said shop. While coming back she saw her fried Binati Pradhan and went to the hospital to see her daughter, who was admitted there. After remaining there for the night, in the early morning at about 5.00 A.M. she went to the shop of Sarju to bring her vegetables. Accused Goura opened the door on her call and she went inside the house. When she was picking up the vegetable basket Goura dragged her inside the house and forcibly committed rape on her and threatened to kill her if she shouted. Thereafter the other appellant Bapi @ Debadutta Ratna Kumar Patra came there and he also committed rape on her. When she wanted to go to the police station, the appellant Goura threatened to kill her showing a knife. In the evening she went to Jayanti Market and after selling vegetables went to her home where she stayed the next day, which was a Sunday. On Monday also she attended Rimuli Market. On Tuesday she went to the hospital for check up and told the lady doctor about the entire occurrence. On her advice, she gave sample of blood and urine for examination. On the way to her home she met the Choukidar of Gunduria village and told him about the occurrence. In the evening she disclosed about the occurrence to her brother. Finally on 26.12.1996 she came to Champua police station, where she orally reported the matter before the police. The report was reduced to writing and a P.S. Case was registered on the basis of the same. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and both the appellants faced trial being indicted under Section 376(2)(g) and 506 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989. The plea of the defence was one of total denial. In addition to that accused Debadutta took a plea that he was hospitalized from 20.12.1996 to 22.12.1996.

(3.) SRI R. Panda, the learned advocate for the appellants has argued that the learned Court below went wrong in convicting the appellants on basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix which is full of contradictions. He has further argued that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been satisfactorily explained in this case and that the material witnesses, the Gram Rakshi and the brother of the victim before whom the victim narrated the incident at the first instance were withheld. He has also argued that the defence evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the victim had ample reason to falsely implicate the appellants. The learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.