State vs Nirakar Panigrahi and Another

L. Mohapatra, J.—This Government Appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 6th of November, 1984 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S. C. No. 9 of 1984 acquitting the respondents of the charge u/s 450/34 of the Penal Code read with Section 376 of the Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that on 3-11-1983 at about 4.30 p.m. both the accused persons came to the house of P.W. 6 who is the victim girl. At that time the victim girl was alone in the house and her sister P.W. 7 had gone to the market. The brother of the victim girl was also not living with them and he was living at a place called Damigam where he had a shop. It is further alleged that when the victim girl was preparing food both the accused persons approached her to supply water. When she refused, the respondent No. 1 stood on the verandah and the respondent No. 2 entered inside the room, bolted the door from inside and forcibly committed rape on her.

The defence plea is denial of the occurrence. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined 8 witnesses. P.W. 6 is the victim girl and P.W. 7 is her sister, P.W. 1 is the doctor who examined the victim girl, On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani did not accept the version of the prosecutrix so far as the offence u/s 376, I.P.C. is concerned and acquitted the respondents of the charge. So far as offence u/s 450 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge also could not find any material to support a conviction.

From the order sheet of this Court, it appears that during pendency of the appeal, the respondent (No. 2 Prakash Parida has expired and only respondent No. 1 is represented by a counsel of this Court. On perusal of the entire judgment and the prosecution case as placed before the Court the allegation so far as offence u/s 376, I.P.C. is concerned is solely attributed, to the respondent No. 2 there is no allegation what soever indicating that the respondent No. 1 either entered inside the room or joined with respondent No. 2 in commission of the offence u/s 376 of the Penal Code. Accordingly. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charge u/s 376, I.P.C. specially so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned. So far as offence u/s 450, I.P.C. is concerned, it appears from the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 that they did not know the accused persons earlier and there was a quarrel between P.W, 7 and the respondent No. 2, except the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are sisters, there is absolutely no other evidence to show that respondent No. 1 entered into the house of the victim girl. I therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that offence u/s 450 of the Indian Penal Code is also not supported by any evidence.

In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.